On Thu, Sep 09, 2010 at 02:29:33PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Kees Cook wrote: > > > * no motd: probably ok; the motd could perhaps be displayed > > > on the first rsync call and not subsequent ones > > > > True, but I suspect it has actually no real value -- the selected server is > > already known to the user, etc. > > I guess two things I've seen rsync motds used for are > a) this is the cool entity who provides this bandwidth > b) actual policy / news stuff for the server > > Maybe it should only be shown, once, in verbose mode?
Yeah, sounds about right. > > > Before silencing any errors I always like to think about > > > how the error could occur. So, is there any case where the find > > > calls fail with an error, that is not itself an error? > > > > Yes, there are a number of cases where it's just looking for things > > existing or not, and it would complain loudly for newly added repos, IIRC. > > Hmm, I have been running debmirror for a week building a new repo, and > have not seen a find error yet.. Well, let's ignore this patch for now. > > > check_file-return.patch > > > > > > Won't this result in a *lot* of spew about "Missing: $file" > > > when starting a fresh mirror in verbose mode? > > > > Yes, but that's what you'd want in verbose mode, right? > > I dunno, all I want in verbose mode is an indication of what it's > downloading, and maybe some progress info. I can guess that it's > downloading the file because it's not present, that seems to obvious to > say. Fair enough; I think I made this change to help debug the "proper" batching rsync patch that I haven't reworked against the new code yet. I'll wait for another stable debmirror release, and try to port the rsync patches I had for fetching all the Release/Packages/etc files in one go instead of fetching them individually like it does at the moment. Thanks! -Kees -- Kees Cook @debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
