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

Re: anonftpsync update, 2nd try



> On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 02:57:07PM +0100, Simon Paillard wrote:
> > Maybe we should update the official script provided on the website at
> > http://www.debian.org/mirrors/anonftpsync to take better options into
> > account.
> > 
> > Here is a try, taking into account this discussion.
> > 
> > Three stage update :
> > - It first add new packages to the pool.
> > - Then update the rest (excluding the pool) with --delay-updates and --delete-after
> > - endly delete old packages in /pool.

On 11.11.06 15:11, Simon Paillard wrote:
> As Guido S. Nickels told me, the third stage can be merged with the
> second one.

Funny, I used this one for years, when I thought deleting after the first
stage is NOT a good idea, since the packages in pool shouldn't be deleted
before Packages* and Release* are updated :))

Damn, I should reported that time. Isn't this 'anonftpsync' script somewhere
in debian package?

> @@ -158,17 +163,16 @@
>  set +e
>  
>  # First sync /pool
> -rsync --recursive --links --hard-links --times --verbose --delete \
> +rsync --recursive --links --hard-links --times --verbose \
>       $EXCLUDE $SOURCE_EXCLUDE \
>       $RSYNC_HOST::$RSYNC_DIR/pool/ $TO/pool/ >> $LOGFILE 2>&1
>  result=$?
>  
>  if [ 0 = $result ]; then
>  	# Now sync the remaining stuff
> -	rsync --recursive --links --hard-links --times --verbose --delete-after \
> +	rsync --recursive --links --hard-links --times --verbose --delay-updates --delete-after \
>  	     --exclude "Archive-Update-in-Progress-${HOSTNAME}" \
>  	     --exclude "project/trace/${HOSTNAME}" \
> -	     --exclude "/pool/" \
>  	     $EXCLUDE \
>  	     $RSYNC_HOST::$RSYNC_DIR $TO >> $LOGFILE 2>&1

-- 
Matus UHLAR - fantomas, uhlar@fantomas.sk ; http://www.fantomas.sk/
Warning: I wish NOT to receive e-mail advertising to this address.
Varovanie: na tuto adresu chcem NEDOSTAVAT akukolvek reklamnu postu.
Due to unexpected conditions Windows 2000 will be released
in first quarter of year 1901



Reply to: