From owner-freebsd-ports Fri Jun 1 5:21:49 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (mta05-svc.ntlworld.com [62.253.162.45]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C63737B422 for ; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 05:21:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from greid@FreeBSD.org) Received: from sobek.openirc.co.uk ([62.252.9.151]) by mta05-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.02.27 201-229-119-110) with ESMTP id <20010601122145.RYPO4151.mta05-svc.ntlworld.com@sobek.openirc.co.uk>; Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:21:45 +0100 Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 13:21:44 +0100 (BST) From: George Reid X-Sender: greid@sobek.openirc.co.uk To: Ernst de Haan Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Supporting pkg-plist.gz ? In-Reply-To: <20010601134436.C15784@c187104187.telekabel.chello.nl> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Fri, 1 Jun 2001, Ernst de Haan wrote: > Decompressing all pkg-plist files on forehand doesn't sound like a good idea, > since the other approach supports a multi-threaded/processing approach. The > performance will in my expectation be much higher, since downloading is > typically much slower than (de)compressing for the size of files we are > talking about (between 1K and 1M). If CVSup were to support locally compressed files, each local file would have to be decompressed first, the delta applied and then recompressed (since you can't decompress "a bit" of the local file). This is obviously more efficient than decompressing all of the plist files, cvsupping as normal and then recompressing. It is however, perhaps too drastic a change, since it definitely wouldn't work in the case where the entire repository was mirrored (i.e. it would break the standard CVS tools). I know nothing of the cvsup internals or Modula-3, so this is probably best left to the authors. > This sounds like a fairly good idea. If we could use `standard' tools for this > then that would be the best solution, IMO. Indeed. I'd like the idea to be thrown around a bit before I actually sit down and do anything about it, though :) -- +-------------------+---------------------+ | George Reid | FreeBSD Committer | | +44 7740 197460 | greid@FreeBSD.org | +-------------------+---------------------+ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message