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