On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 02:38:58AM -0400, Alec Warner wrote:
> I was looking at Transport code last night and I noticed it only
> supported HTTP/HTTPS/FTP, which I thought was kind of limited.  Thoughts
> on merging the Sync code in with Transports, having the transport lib
> covering all...well..file transport code within portage?  The Rsync code
> is strikingly similar, and I was thinking of adding scp as well so
> people have a lot of options.
> 
> Thoughts, objections...donuts?
I like cheese. ?

scp doesn't support resume, so it differs from existing transports if 
added.  For merging of sync and transports, transports is specifically 
single file network io requests, sync can mangle multiple files.  

Dunno, possible.
Honestly sync and transports could use a mild set of touch ups, 
although not sure about collapsing/combining the sync/transports bit.
Reasons for it, aside from having a few more protocols able to be 
handled?  Hadn't thought about the possibility of supporting cvs for 
SRC_URI- that would be nifty, although would need a way to specify a 
required atom for protocols (if this cpv has cvs://blar in it, it 
requires dev-util/cvs, or preferably a virtual should dev-util/cvs 
ever move...
~brian