| 1 |
On Sunday 30 October 2005 15:08, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 02:47:51PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > post sync has a limited shelf life; it's usable now for the following |
| 4 |
> > > 1) rolling gensync functionality in |
| 5 |
> > > 2) rolling glsa notices on sync in |
| 6 |
> > > 3) rolling package watch lists of updates in |
| 7 |
> > > 4) a method to trigger transfer of an rsync temp dir on a rsync proxy |
| 8 |
> > > for a lan to the actual directory rsyncd distributes from. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > 1, 2 and 3 are slated for inclusion. What will happen with 4 and other |
| 11 |
> > similar site-specific hooks? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> My intention for post sync is to ignore it for 3.0 code. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Reasoning pretty much comes down to the fact it's a general hook; we |
| 16 |
> have no way of knowing if they're triggering cache generation, |
| 17 |
> arbitrary repo syncing, package scans, etc. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That's not to say that hooking code in won't be possible, just that |
| 20 |
> post sync in it's current form I view as strictly a 2.x thing; so... |
| 21 |
> for #4, how I'd probably implement it in 3.0 would be a treeset, |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> rsync repo, |
| 24 |
> rsyncd share point repo |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> with the sync calls chained; basically a slaved repo. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Intend to do similar tricks with slaving the cache for ospreyon a |
| 29 |
> sidenote. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Either way, configuration will allow something to be done, although |
| 32 |
> again, post sync won't be the route, will have to specify the wrappers |
| 33 |
> per repo (and potentially do some trickery for #4 in your config). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Ok, that works. Adding functionality that won't be supported long term even by |
| 36 |
an alternative method kind of worries me. ;) |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives