| 1 |
Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Monday 10 August 2015 09:13:01 Dale wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> I might add, sync is taking a LONG time again. Of course, my DSL is a |
| 6 |
>>> bit slower than some folks. At least the bumpy road got smoothed out |
| 7 |
>>> tho. It seems to be working again. Maybe next sync will be back to |
| 8 |
>>> normal. |
| 9 |
>> I do one sync a day, of my LAN server, and sync anything else to that. I don't |
| 10 |
>> know how long it took today because I have it on a cron job at night. :-) |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
> Well, if you synced with all broken manifest files, and re-synced with |
| 13 |
> all fixed manifest files, you'd expect one file to be updated for |
| 14 |
> every package in the repository, so that would be a long sync (but not |
| 15 |
> quite as long as the original one). |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> This was never intended to be a user-visible change (hence no news, |
| 18 |
> etc). The digest issue was an oversight which was fixed. At this |
| 19 |
> point rsync should work as it always did, minus one really long sync. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> The main thing you'll probably see is that the headers of the ebuilds |
| 22 |
> all contain git hashes instead of cvs revisions. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
What I was expecting, one longer than usual sync maybe and even more |
| 27 |
likely, a config update so that some change takes effect. I expected |
| 28 |
something to change but wasn't expecting what I got for sure. That had |
| 29 |
me wondering. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
We all good now tho. < thumbs up > |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Dale |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
:-) :-) |
Archives