On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 23:40 +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
On 09/30/2009 07:43 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
Fedora's rpm used to have a
modified copy of zlib so that the created rpms were more rsync
friendly. As deltarpm needs to recreate the same compressed
payload I also had to support
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 04:46 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
But we also need to reasonable, and unless someone volunteers to do the
actual work *without* breaking the tool in the process, I think a policy
like this need to be evaluated case by case and not just blindly and
rigidly enforced.
And, in
2009/9/14 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
Hi, everyone. We - the QA group - have recently been researching the
feasibility of using zsync to reduce the size of live image downloads.
This has hit a roadblock in the form of the problem where both rsync and
zsync use forked zlibs rather than
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Simo Sorce wrote:
see that we can remove it now.
Not to be distrusting but I am also going to watch out and see how
easily we might break something, just for nazi-like mindset in enforcing
a policy.
Godwin's law? Really? This early in the thread?
Maybe we should cool
On 10/01/2009 03:10 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
2009/9/14 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
Hi, everyone. We - the QA group - have recently been researching the
feasibility of using zsync to reduce the size of live image downloads.
This has hit a roadblock in the form of the problem
2009/10/1 Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com:
On 10/01/2009 03:10 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
2009/9/14 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
Hi, everyone. We - the QA group - have recently been researching the
feasibility of using zsync to reduce the size of live image downloads.
This has
On 10/01/2009 09:42 AM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
2009/10/1 Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com:
A) You're a coder and want to get your hands dirty with the rsync
protocol. Check out how librsync manages to use the system zlib and if
possible to do this compatibly, apply it to zsync and
This problem is not restricted to zsync:
deltarpm has the same problem as it supports the rsync protocol, too.
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526432 - yes, I just opened it)
I did not do the research but it might be worth checking other programs
that deal with the rsync protocol.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:05:58AM +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
deltarpm has the same problem as it supports the rsync protocol, too.
I think deltarpm's zlib patch to support 'gzip --rsyncable' is
different to the rsync patch. I've sent the patch upstream in 2005,
but got no response.
(The
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 08:07 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 09/29/2009 05:00 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/29/2009 05:14 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
Seems that violations of the guidelines are not so important like the
violation of the Trademark (The hunting of fedora related
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:27:44AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
So... that means the custom zlib isn't necessary to the proper operation
of deltarpm, correct? I haven't looked at where in the code this is
being used yet but I'm guessing this zlib is used when:
1) Reading the existing rpm
On 09/30/2009 10:43 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:27:44AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
So... that means the custom zlib isn't necessary to the proper operation
of deltarpm, correct? I haven't looked at where in the code this is
being used yet but I'm guessing this
On 09/29/2009 09:24 AM, James Antill wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 08:07 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 09/29/2009 05:00 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/29/2009 05:14 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
Seems that violations of the guidelines are not so important like the
violation of the
On 09/30/2009 11:34 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 09/30/2009 10:43 AM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
AFAIK the current rpm uses the system's zlib library, so the
deltarpm copy is also no longer needed for Fedora.
Interesting. That's slightly puzzling though. That would mean that
deltarpm
On 09/30/2009 07:43 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
Fedora's rpm used to have a
modified copy of zlib so that the created rpms were more rsync
friendly. As deltarpm needs to recreate the same compressed
payload I also had to support this.
Always nice to see how insanity leads to even more
2009/9/29 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org
Are we removing rsync from the distribution? I hope not.
What is your argumentation for keeping rsync, even it doesn't meet the
fedora guidelines?
What is with the other packages which doesn't meet the guidelines?
I believe there are no
Le Mar 29 septembre 2009 10:54, Josephine Tannhäuser a écrit :
2009/9/29 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org
Are we removing rsync from the distribution? I hope not.
What is your argumentation for keeping rsync, even it doesn't meet the
fedora guidelines?
What is with the other
2009/9/29 Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net
Of course we care about existing packages;
Oh, really? There exist a tracker for bugs with duplicated libs.
There are not really activities on these bugs. Perhaps the maintainers ( not
that I blame them) are not interessted in solving these
On 09/29/2009 05:14 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
Seems that violations of the guidelines are not so important like the
violation of the Trademark (The hunting of fedora related sites, like
blogs or forums with adhesions contracts)... Are the project related
activities are out of balance?
2009/9/29 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org
Bundling a library is not ideal but removing rsync would be a extreme step.
I believe this isn't a technical problem, more a psychological one. Fedora
is a (software) technic orientated project, or?
--
Josephine Fine Tannhäuser
On 09/29/2009 05:45 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
2009/9/29 Rahul Sundaram
Bundling a library is not ideal but removing rsync would be a
extreme step.
I believe this isn't a technical problem, more a psychological one.
Fedora is a (software) technic orientated project, or?
It
Once upon a time, Josephine Tannhäuser josephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com
said:
2009/9/29 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org
Bundling a library is not ideal but removing rsync would be a extreme step.
I believe this isn't a technical problem, more a psychological one. Fedora
is a
On 09/29/2009 05:00 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/29/2009 05:14 PM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
Seems that violations of the guidelines are not so important like the
violation of the Trademark (The hunting of fedora related sites, like
blogs or forums with adhesions contracts)... Are the
On Tue, 2009-09-29 at 08:15 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Josephine Tannhäuser josephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com
said:
2009/9/29 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org
Bundling a library is not ideal but removing rsync would be a extreme
step.
I believe this isn't
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:28 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 09/16/2009 08:59 AM, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
Am 16.09.2009 17:47, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
That still leaves open the question of why no one has asked rsync
upstream to make their fork publicly available instead of hoarding
it
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:53 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 13:28 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 09/16/2009 08:59 AM, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
Am 16.09.2009 17:47, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
That still leaves open the question of why no one has asked
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:53:21PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Secondly, where would be the appropriate place to propose accepting
zsync with the internal zlib? Is that something I should bring to the
packaging committee?
This proposal has already been declined by FESCo:
2009/9/15 Simo Sorce sso...@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 12:34 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This would be great if maintainers were willing to fix issues after
the
fact. Look at rsync -- there's no incentive to fix the library issue
at
this point because rsync is already in the
On 09/16/2009 01:59 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
And yes I am the maintainer of rsync and I am not doing the job, because
I don't want to have to create or maintain such patcheset until the day
I am reasonably sure upstream will want such patches.
So, have you asked upstream this question?
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:32 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
Looking through the mailing list archives, as far as I can tell, noone
has tried this course of action yet:
1) Ask zlib upstream to accept the changes that the rsync devs made to
zlib and issue a new release
2) Ask rsync upstream
On 09/16/2009 12:42 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 14:01 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 09/15/2009 01:29 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
Sorry but the packager may have no way to influence upstream.
And to be honest having a huge patch against rsync and/or zsync to
extract a library
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 08:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This is a logical leap. rsync has forked zlib but they are only using
the fork internally. 2 and 3 get that fork out in the open so that
more
than one program can use it. 2 and 3 are solutions when solution 1
fails. Since solution
On 09/16/2009 08:39 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 08:10 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This is a logical leap. rsync has forked zlib but they are only using
the fork internally. 2 and 3 get that fork out in the open so that
more
than one program can use it. 2 and 3 are
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 16.09.2009 17:47, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
That still leaves open the question of why no one has asked rsync
upstream to make their fork publicly available instead of hoarding
it as a private, internal copy.
I would ask, why the modification
Hey,
I googled for it and found Karims blogpost and Simon aka kassamedias answer
(comment 3)
http://kparal.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/zsync-transfer-large-files-efficiently/
--
Josephine Fine Tannhäuser
2.6.29.6-213.fc11.i586
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 09/15/2009 04:44 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
Hey,
I googled for it and found Karims blogpost and Simon aka kassamedias answer
(comment 3)
http://kparal.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/zsync-transfer-large-files-efficiently/
I will note that the reply is not quite right. We can have
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 08:55 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
At present we are
still in the contradictory and unsatisfactory position of
shipping rsync
with an internal forked zlib but refusing to accept zsync
as a package
because it does exactly the same
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
At present we are
still in the contradictory and unsatisfactory position of
shipping rsync
with an internal forked zlib but refusing to accept zsync
as a package
because it does exactly
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 13:44 +0200, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
Hey,
I googled for it and found Karims blogpost and Simon aka kassamedias
answer (comment 3)
http://kparal.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/zsync-transfer-large-files-efficiently/
If we _really_ cared about doing this OAOO, we could
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 08:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 08:55 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
At present we are
still in the contradictory and unsatisfactory position of
shipping rsync
with an internal forked zlib but refusing to
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This would be great if maintainers were willing to fix issues after the
fact. Look at rsync -- there's no incentive to fix the library issue at
this point because rsync is already in the distribution. We need to fix
this lack of incentive for other reasons -- but we
On 09/15/2009 01:10 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This would be great if maintainers were willing to fix issues after the
fact. Look at rsync -- there's no incentive to fix the library issue at
this point because rsync is already in the distribution. We need to fix
this
42 matches
Mail list logo
