On 05/10/2017 02:14 AM, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > For some reason I sent this to arch-dev-public instead, sending again here… > > On 2017-05-10 04:27, Pablo Roberto Lezaeta Reyes via arch-general > wrote: >> You should clarify if this affect user cloning the servers repos by >> rsync to set they non-tiered local repos (*.pkg.tag.xzs) or just the >> pkgbuilds repo clones (PKGBUILDs). > > That's better phrased in Florian's revision, but both mention PKGBUILDs, > so I'm not sure if there is anything more to explain. > >> Also mention devtools still depend on subversion despite you mention >> that for cloning one should use git, that intentional or >> inconsistenty? > > devtools depending on svn has nothing to do with ABS; the paragraph you > refer to describes methods of obtaining full PKGBUILDs tree. > > Bartłomiej > Sad, but I understand the 'cost' issue. (seems like it would be easier to pass-the-hat and cover the costs, but that's way above my Arch pay-grade...) So if I understand the move, the removal of ABS is to reduce cost by removing the ability to clone the whole PKGBUILD tree from an rsync server and basically pushing everything to a single-package export from the git repo on an 'as needed basis' or allowing a sparse clone of the tree in its place? abs certainly was a bit part of the Arch KISS philosophy, with a single command mirroring the build system to /var. Was darn convenient to... Hard to see how the 84M (uncompressed) it requires was that big of a cost issue, but I guess it adds up. So from now on, we use 'asp export pkgname'. Is it recommended that we `sudo rm -rf /var/abs` at the end of the month? It doesn't look like it will have any use under the new way of doing things. -- David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.
