| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
cracatau
n00b
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 5
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:11 am Post subject: Portage sync using subversion |
 |
|
What do you think about using subversion+apache/deltav to make portage synchronization?
It has a lot of different advantages, e.g. works through HTTP proxies w/o problems (so effective way to avoid huge websyncs), use effective delta algorithms etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
moocha
Watchman
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 5722
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 1:03 pm Post subject: Re: Portage sync using subversion |
|
|
| cracatau wrote: | What do you think about using subversion+apache/deltav to make portage synchronization?
It has a lot of different advantages, e.g. works through HTTP proxies w/o problems (so effective way to avoid huge websyncs), use effective delta algorithms etc. |
It also requires much more CPU time on the server side compared to rsync, it's not as well tested (rsync's got more years of testing behind it, I mean), it's a more complex system so it's inherently more fragile, and it will take up more disk space on the client machines due to Subversion's working copy directories.
Also, rsync works flawlessly through HTTP proxies. All one has to do is instruct the proxy to let port 873/TCP through for the CONNECT method, and export the RSYNC_PROXY="proxy.hostname.or.ip:port" environment variable.
In short, nice idea, but it's got more disadvantages than it's got advantages. Don't really see the point of complicating things further.
Now, if the master portage tree were to be held in a subversion repository... Well, then the problem would be stated quite a bit differently  .
_________________
Military Commissions Act of 2006: http://tinyurl.com/jrcto
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- attributed to Benjamin Franklin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cracatau
n00b
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, it seems you are absolutely right. So, maybe other way is possible - to use rsync but on server side listen on 80 port instead of 873. E.g. ICQ allows to use any port to connect to server and it is very easy to use it through the proxy.
My situation is that our firewall is corporative and is very far away from us geographically and hierarchically and serves the big LAN. So there is very tiny chance to make administrators open this port  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Networking & Security
