Summary: | RESTRICT=fetch should be overridden by non FS-based local mirrors | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Portage Development | Reporter: | SpanKY <vapier> |
Component: | Enhancement/Feature Requests | Assignee: | Portage team <dev-portage> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | philantrop |
Priority: | High | Keywords: | InVCS |
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | All | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 136244 | ||
Attachments: | A really bad patch so far ;) |
Description
SpanKY
2004-01-06 21:28:28 UTC
+1. http-replicator and similar distfiles caching proxies (which have the potential to be huge bandwidth savers for public Gentoo mirrors) are defeated by RESTRICT="fetch". I would much rather stuff the latest 35MB Sun JDK file into one cache directory than manually scp it around to N local distfiles directories. Why does fetch need to work differently than nomirror, anyway? Created attachment 65578 [details, diff]
A really bad patch so far ;)
This should work but still has some errors in it...there is a lot of code that
validates fetching, even from a local mirror and I don't want to duplicate it,
so it's basically a hack at trying to convince the rest of the fetching code
that we can only use local mirrors.
Actually just looking at the patch it isn't that bad, but I haven't checked where in fetch() it triggers (I try to avoid that function if possible ;). (In reply to comment #3) > Actually just looking at the patch it isn't that bad, but I haven't checked > where in fetch() it triggers (I try to avoid that function if possible ;). > Trust me, it's no fun :/ This is a feature that I despereatly need to be included into portage. I am currently trying to plan a large scale installation of (hopefully) gentoo and this feature would be one step towards solving the list of problems. (please see http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-477283.html and http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-3473345.html#3473345). Is there any chance of this functionality being integrated into portage? It would be a boost to those of use that are proud of gentoo and trying to encourage large scale installations. (In reply to comment #5) > This is a feature that I despereatly need to be included into portage. I am > currently trying to plan a large scale installation I agree. This feature will definitely be needed for enterprise scale deployment which is what I'm looking into professionally, too, currently. For now, this problems remains a major blocker. I'm putting this on my todo list. This is fixed in svn r4027 and r4028. Thank you, greatly appreciated! This has been released in 2.1.1_pre4. |