From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [EAPI 8 RFC] Selective fetch/mirror (un-)restriction
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 16:21:21 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ffc21e6c5ff8ec235a27fec5d91e1e02d27fbef5.camel@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <w6gzhfss95v.fsf@kph.uni-mainz.de>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1927 bytes --]
On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 14:16 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Proposed solution
> > =================
> > The current proposal is based on extending the current URI syntax to
> > permit excluding individual files from the restriction. The idea is to
> > prepend 'fetch+' to protocol to undo fetch restriction, or to prepend
> > 'mirror+' to undo fetch & mirror restrictions.
> > Example 1: removing mirror restriction from files
> > RESTRICT="mirror"
> > SRC_URI="https://example.com/you-cant-mirror-this.tar.bz2
> > mirror+https://example.com/but-you-can-mirror-this.tar.gz"
> > Example 2: removing fetch & mirror restriction from files
> > RESTRICT="fetch"
> > SRC_URI="https://example.com/you-cant-fetch-this.zip
> > mirror+https://example.com/but-you-can-mirror-this.tar.gz"
> > Example 3: removing fetch restriction while leaving mirror restriction
> > RESTRICT="fetch"
> > SRC_URI="https://example.com/you-cant-fetch-this.zip
> > fetch+https://example.com/you-cant-mirror-this.tar.bz2"
>
> Looks good, but what is slightly confusing is that it doesn't map
> one-to-one to the RESTRICT tokens:
>
> - RESTRICT="mirror" enables mirror restriction, and it is undone by
> "mirror+", as expected.
>
> - RESTRICT="fetch" enables both fetch and mirror restriction, but it is
> undone by "mirror+" as well, not by "fetch+" (which disables only
> fetch restriction).
>
> I had already asked this in bug 371413 [1], but is there an actual usage
> case for example 3? Because if there isn't, we might get away with only
> supporting "mirror+", which should be less error prone.
>
Does this really solve the problem? The labels are still the other way
around, except that you throw 'fetch+' away as invalid.
While at it, I'm wondering if 'mirror+mirror://foo' can be confusing.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 618 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-17 15:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-16 12:39 [gentoo-dev] [EAPI 8 RFC] Selective fetch/mirror (un-)restriction Michał Górny
2019-12-16 13:09 ` Francesco Riosa
2019-12-16 13:33 ` Ulrich Mueller
2019-12-16 15:24 ` Rich Freeman
2019-12-16 13:16 ` Ulrich Mueller
2019-12-17 15:21 ` Michał Górny [this message]
2019-12-20 9:20 ` Michał Górny
2019-12-20 13:35 ` Ulrich Mueller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ffc21e6c5ff8ec235a27fec5d91e1e02d27fbef5.camel@gentoo.org \
--to=mgorny@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox