On 12/26/05, Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote: > > On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please > > > > | keep this info out of the sync-tree? > > > > > > > > Learn to use the rsync exclude list. > > > > > > > I think the point was that the 'average' user needs to pull it as well > > > and has _no_ use for it. > > > > > > There are already complaints about syncs taking to long. > > > > The complaints was about the cache, not about the actual sync time > > Complaints about both actually- try sync'ing on a crap connection. > Rsync doesn't scale well the larger the dataset gets (the fact it > still performs well is a testament to it being mostly a damn fine > tool). We've got at least a 2.4mB overhead just for doing > filelist/chksum transfers; that's not getting into pulling the > _actual_ updates. > > > > This is what, maybe the equivilent of a new ebuild once, and a -rX any > > time somethings changed? It won't effect much at all and end up being > > a lot more helpful (and quickly implemented) than waiting around for > > someone to write a web database and pushing that through. > > Quicker balanced against proper; debate right now is if it's the > proper place to do this (thus address that concern) :) > > > > We have metadata.xml's, why not use them? > > We have ebuilds, why don't we stick it there? Arguement doesn't work > well there ;)
Because its package specific, not version specific :) This is one of the reasons metadata came about in the first place. > > (No I'm not advocating tagging this into ebuilds btw). > ~harring > > > -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
