Re: [gentoo-user] An alternative to http-replicator

[Teresa and Dale <teendale@vista-express.com>]

Bob Sanders wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 10:25:25 +0000
>Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>What's the pros/cons of mounting portage over NFS Vs http-replicator?
>>    
>>
>
>
>If you only have one architecture and one system type or one system that
>can be a superset of the others, nfs will serve you fine.
>
>If you have multiple architectures, the packages release at different
>times and sometimes different revs.  For this http-replicator is a 
>better choice.
>
>For example - I run x86, amd64, and power pc.  Thus, need a broader
>spectrum of packages.
>
>Or if you run desktops and servers (different sets of software) and don't
>have a common set of USE flags - use say, lighttpd, php, and mysql on the
>server but not on the desktop.  Or more likely, use postfix, sasl, tinydns,
>and procmail on the server, but not the desktop (assumes the desktop uses
>LDAP or POP).  Then http-replicator would be a better choice.
>
>Bob
>-  
>  
>

Could a person use NFS for the distfles then use rsync for the snapshot
or sync part??  I have used the rsync before and it works fine,
especially when I was on a 26K dial-up which sucked.

Dale
:-)  :-)
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list