--=-avG5OPMvZ5hCMAUePAY3
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sat, 2002-06-15 at 18:04, seth vidal wrote:
> So I was thinking some more about how to handle the compressed headers
> to not break the current people using it until they get a new client
> which supports patched headers.
How about instead of trying to preserve compatibility with un-gzipped
headers we just drop it and go directly with gzipped ones. I mean, I
realize that we will break the existing installations for, what is it, 5
people, but even then all they will have to do is to rm -rf a couple of
directories and do a "yum update" to get the gzipped headers. There are
a few people using the dulug tree, but as you had mentioned, it's
"experimental", so if stuff breaks we won't even have to feel guilty
about it.
I just want to adhere to the "KISS" priciple, and currently it tells me
that we don't want to introduce unnecessary complexities. I say let's
gzip all headers and basta. :)
What do you all think?
--=20
0> Konstantin ("Icon") Riabitsev
/ ) Duke University Physics Sysadmin
~ www.phy.duke.edu/~icon/pubkey.asc
--=-avG5OPMvZ5hCMAUePAY3
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iEYEABECAAYFAj0LvuYACgkQlVxa81EWb4gjBQCfZkVV0vtDqK5Mm4fx0lTpYD71
xuYAn2BCuhfRM2Fbhn3wbqyZ9rwNfVJc
=wMo9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-avG5OPMvZ5hCMAUePAY3--
