On Thursday 11 August 2005 05:49, Alec Warner wrote:
> Christian Parpart wrote:
> > On Thursday 11 August 2005 02:04, Carlos Silva wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >>What do you think of this?
> >
> > I once asked for a better place (namely metadata.xml), but got
> > corrected with the following reason:
> >
Mildly hijacking the thread to poke about alternative mirroring
methods...
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:23:48PM -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> The diff between 20050801 and 20050802 is only 862668 bytes (uncompressed)
> (and
> 157728 bytes when bzip2'd), so either rsync needs some serious work d
Carlos Silva wrote:
I know that portage team is closed for new features :) but this just
came to my mind just 5 minutes ago and seemed good enought to try.
Let's just think that portage handles 5 version of package foo and foo
has "http://www.foo.org"; and homepage, "GPL-v2" license and "foo jus
On Thursday 11 August 2005 07:23, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Another alternative would also be to reduce the number of the files in the
> tree. (Merging digests and manifests would shave off ~20k files, converting
> the metadata cache files into large single files would shave off another
> ~20k).
Wh
Quoting Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Christian Parpart wrote:
On Thursday 11 August 2005 02:04, Carlos Silva wrote:
[...]
What do you think of this?
I once asked for a better place (namely metadata.xml), but got
corrected with
the following reason:
HOMEPAGE/LICENSE/DESCRIPTION might c
On Thu, Aug 11, 2005 at 01:04:25AM +0100, Carlos Silva wrote:
[snip]
> or metadata.xml. This way, users with slow connections don't download
> almost 1MB of info every time they sync.
Yes, your example occupies 1MB of space.
However, it does NOT equate to 1MB of bandwidth with each sync.
If you go
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Christian Parpart wrote:
> On Thursday 11 August 2005 02:04, Carlos Silva wrote:
> [...]
>
>>What do you think of this?
>
>
> I once asked for a better place (namely metadata.xml), but got corrected with
> the following reason:
>
> HOMEPAGE/LICENS
On Thursday 11 August 2005 02:04, Carlos Silva wrote:
[...]
> What do you think of this?
I once asked for a better place (namely metadata.xml), but got corrected with
the following reason:
HOMEPAGE/LICENSE/DESCRIPTION might change over version bumps; not just the
revision/version number, also t
On Thu, 2005-08-11 at 01:15 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:04:25 +0100 Carlos Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> | What do you think of this?
>
> GLEP 5
>
*G* :) thx for the info
btw, why is the status of GLEP 5 "timed out"?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digital
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:04:25 +0100 Carlos Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| What do you think of this?
GLEP 5
--
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm
pgpZjrHzgbbKe.pgp
Des
I know that portage team is closed for new features :) but this just
came to my mind just 5 minutes ago and seemed good enought to try.
Let's just think that portage handles 5 version of package foo and foo
has "http://www.foo.org"; and homepage, "GPL-v2" license and "foo just
make your pc look fa
11 matches
Mail list logo
