Summary: | transitioning to lzma snapshots for emerge-webrsync | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | SpanKY <vapier> |
Component: | Unclassified | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | esigra, infra-bugs |
Priority: | High | Keywords: | InVCS |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 216231 |
Description
SpanKY
2008-02-21 07:53:59 UTC
won't this require long term support in portage before we can drop tbz2? This would imply that we would have to generate and ship both for some time(probably a year) portage peeps: please advise. It will be smoothest for users if we provide both types of snapshots for a period of time (maybe a year or so). That way they can use an older version of emerge-webrsync to fetch a bzip2 snapshot containing a newer version that supports lzma snapshots. "tbz2" is the short name for Gentoo binary packages. however, we're talking about snapshots, not binary packages here (for now!). yes, we need emerge-webrsync first to be updated, that's why the bugs assigned to portage. i dont know anything about the snapshot process though to say what all needs to be updated. a transition period is ideal. emerge-webrsync should support lzma files now if someone wants to give it a try so what's the next step ? I've adjusted the scripts on osprey/redtail to create the lzma snapshots. Now there is a portage-20080316.tar.lzma snapshot that can be used to test emerge-webrsync as soon as it propagates to the mirrors. This is supposed to be fixed in portage-2.2_pre5 or earlier. This is supposed to be fixed in portage-2.2_pre5 or earlier. i just tested said version and it seems to be working for me [ ] portage-20080319.tar.bz2 20-Mar-2008 01:55 30M [ ] portage-20080319.tar.lzma 20-Mar-2008 01:55 26M every meg counts ;) |