Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] the update process

sm-discuss AT

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Kajikawa Jeremy <belxjander_serechai AT>
  • To: sm-discuss <sm-discuss AT>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] the update process
  • Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:05:20 +0900

Im willing to setup hosting of the git grimoire with the only cap limit
being 30GB/day UL
off my personal server.

Other than that I'll need a little help from flux in reading the router
manual again.
(I still havent learnt enough Kanji for the Japanese router here)

I can let upto 10GB/UL happen on a daily basis and host the grimoire
git / svn and cvs access as required or even write a custom
web-interface for
on-the-fly signed tarballs

the on-the-fly option will require someone with python knowledge helping
(Im still a complete n00b for that language)

Jeremy (Belxjander)

P.S.: "Hello Emrys(Jeremy)"

On Thu, 2008-12-04 at 15:44 +0100, Jaka Kranjc wrote:
> On Thursday 04 of December 2008 15:34:17 Vasil Yonkov wrote:
> > reason I actually thought the rsync update will be faster :) Moreover,
> > with
> > rsync method, the authentication failed every time (might be a temporary
> > issue), and with git method, Sorcery was telling me every time "there is
> > no
> > verification method!". Well, I thought git has a built in sha1 checksum
> > functionality. Am I wrong?
> That warning means that *we* don't provide means of verification for the
> git
> download. For example, tarballs are GPG signed, but this is impractical for
> sources coming directly from a SCM.
> > This raises an another question - after git is such a good method for
> > update, why do we stick to the tarballs? It's a sluggish method. I don't
> > know how it is on the server side, but I'm pretty sure that it uses a lot
> > of bandwidth (compared to git) - everyone, on every update have to
> > download
> > around 6MB.
> I am not familiar with our current server setup, but when git was initially
> rolled out, the admin didn't want it to be open to the wide public (traffic
> limits). At that time also sorcery support was lacking.
> > Wouldn't be easier to branch the codex with git and make it the default
> > update method?
> That's mostly up to our server guys. The codex is already in git, that's
> how
> we work with it. ;)
> ps, don't set Reply-To when on mailing-lists.
> LP
> _______________________________________________
> SM-Discuss mailing list
> SM-Discuss AT

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page