On 4 Mar 2003, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 08:15:25AM +1100, Martin Pool wrote: > > Wayne, could you write a few paragraphs for the manual about this? > > Either plain text or a diff to the SGML is fine. > > Sure, I'd be glad to. > > On a somewhat related note, I have been meaning to ask you about the > "/MAX" syntax since I was thinking about helping to document it. > However, I'd need to know if you've yet decided to keep the syntax or > not, if you'd like to me submit such a patch (or prefer to do it > yourself), and what the preferred syntax is for combining it with a > port: > > I had thought that the full syntax would be HOST:PORT/MAX (since I think > of the HOST:PORT as a set that specifies a unique distcc resource).
That was what I originally planned. Rusty's patch used HOST/MAX:PORT and I hadn't decided whether to change it or not. > However, it appears that the parser expects this to be HOST/MAX:PORT. > Do you have a preference for either format? I think that the former is > slightly better, and would be glad to tweak the code to accept it. I agree that the other one is a bit more sensible. It kind of depends on what the ssh syntax is. It seems to me that a nice way to write it is @HOST [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]/MAX although something like this might also make sense, even it's a bit more verbose ssh:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/MAX ssh:HOST I had wondered about allowing the name of the remote program to be specified, by @otherbox:distccd-1.2 @otherbox:/usr/local/bin/distccd-1.2 This sort of thing seemed to sometimes be useful for rsync. Obviously having a path in there causes problems with adding a /MAX at the end. This may have been what Rusty had in mind when he wrote his patch. I'm not sure specifying the remote command per host is really terribly useful though. -- Martin __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
