From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-dev+bounces-60803-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
	by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE09D1381F3
	for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:48:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A6DCFE09C5;
	Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:48:00 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from a1www.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1www.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.1])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5FA2EE09A2
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 13:47:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de [134.93.134.92])
	by a1www.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id r5FDlu0e032590
	for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:47:56 +0200
Received: from a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.6/8.14.2) with ESMTP id r5FDlu4K000326;
	Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:47:56 +0200
Received: (from ulm@localhost)
	by a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de (8.14.6/8.14.6/Submit) id r5FDluAe000321;
	Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:47:56 +0200
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <20924.28812.579338.46479@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 15:47:56 +0200
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] SRC_URI behaviour
In-Reply-To: <51BC6E0A.8070800@flameeyes.eu>
References: <51BC2C55.7010506@mva.name>
	<CAHcsgXQgRRN_X=WB3M6SzkubotfovmWg=guA5vte8Z9PAdudOw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGfcS_knmiqLkooK2uEUt-aErhMMoA1XUWZTYVuJrn=sM6Jp2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20924.28003.927022.484836@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de>
	<51BC6E0A.8070800@flameeyes.eu>
X-Mailer: VM 8.2.0b under 24.3.1 (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
X-Archives-Salt: bd41b500-3c74-4094-86aa-dfdb6b94efaa
X-Archives-Hash: 57393f180e7c0236d635860cfa6af2e7

>>>>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2013, Diego Elio Pettenò wrote:

>> "restrict+http:" (as suggested by the OP) is probably not enough
>> because it doesn't distinguish between fetch and mirror
>> restriction.

> nofetch+http and nomirror+http ?

Or the other way around: {fetch,mirror}+http. I'd rather have RESTRICT
apply to all of SRC_URI (as it is now) and use the new syntax to
specify any exceptions from the restriction.

Ulrich