[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Idea: rsync-based source format

On 14044 March 1977, Ian Jackson wrote:

>> This will make NEW a tad more complex: For most of us, NEW review
>> consists of two shells, one of which runs the NEW tool, the other a tmux
>> with an mc in it. Which allows *fast* and easy browsing of near any kind
>> of archive (nested ones too), with the left window in mc presenting the
>> directory tree[1], the right one a quickview of the file contents. I
>> don't think an rsync batchfile is supported in mc (yet?) and it seems it
>> can contain any kind of added files directly, so the happiness about
>> such a format isn't all too high: It will make NEW processing of
>> packages using it *WAY* more hassle and *WAY* slower.
> Obviously we don't want that.

> Are you saying you want to review just the Debian delta ?  Or are you
> trying to avoid extracting the source package ?  Or to put it another
> way, I don't understand why you wouldn't dpkg-source -x and look at
> the resulting tree in mc.

We are trying to get the work done as fast as possible as there is
always more waiting.

Up to now you can mostly just go with using mc and its "everything is a
filesystem" for archives (and diffs and whatnot) of near any format.

Sure can do a dpkg-source -x and look, but thats much more time
consuming. Also, if that starts deleting files around, you still have to
manually look into the tarballs, one by one, as then not the end result,
but what we distribute in the tarballs is interesting in NEW.

> An rsync batchfile doesn't really contain "files" in that way; it
> might contain binary deltas, etc.  So I don't think extending mc to
> read rsync protocol streams is the right answer.  But I think if I
> understand what you are trying to look at, we can probably make it
> reasonably convenient.

It does contain files when a file gets added entirely, but yes, its not
just that.

bye, Joerg
<Aquariophile> geht nur in IE
<Aquariophile> unter win
<Aquariophile> autsch ich glaub das war ein eigentor

Reply to: