On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 13:29 -0800, eliott wrote:
On 11/16/07, Aaron Griffin <aaronmgriffin@gmail.com> wrote:
Hey guys, I wanted to bring this up here to see if anyone had any input.
For the longest time I have hated that ABS is dependent on our version control system. Not only that but we have this whole csup/cvsup thing which is annoying, and _now_ we hit yet another snag: csup doesn't have cvsupd, which means we can't get rid of the cvsup package on gerolde.
So yeah, CVS == headache.
I wanted to try to get rid of this, and Dan had a brilliant idea: * Some cron job (or even cvs hook) that does a simple export of the repo when it needs to. * rsyncd supplying that exports that dir * Modify 'abs' to use rsync * Boom, done
Does anyone have any issues with something like that? Or any better ideas?
Sounds full of win to me. 1. We already leverage rsync. It will just be some setup on our end.
We should set it up on a different hostname and port. rsync://abs.archlinux.org:874 comes to mind. This will allow us to run a separate rsync service where we can force compression,etc on or off as we see fit.
2. rsync is scm agnostic. If we change scm in the future, we just change the export dir generation sequence. To the end user, it is seamless.
Agreed.
3. It should migrate well. End users will just get the new abs package, and sync. There should be no need to nuke and refetch abs..just update with rsync.
Right. But do we use --delete in the abs client?
4. One less service running on gerolde. Ever run top and watch cvsupd? lulz
rsync has spent its fair share of time at the top of top as well.
5. We can throttle the speed with rsyncd configuration options if we want. This might be a nice way to make sure people don't go crazy with it or something.
Yep. See my response to #1.
6. Standard from the end user perspective. Lots of similar things use rsync. I think bsd ports can be rsync fetched, for instance.
Good to know. Can you confirm this? Dale