Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So... are we going to announce the SVN move, or should I just go on > ahead and announce the ABS stuff? For the record, I think announcing the SVN move is a tad silly. People don't care how we manage our repos, and if they do, they're probably watching this list anyway.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Dan McGee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So... are we going to announce the SVN move, or should I just go on > > > ahead and announce the ABS stuff? > > > > > > > Oh, and revised draft: > > > > > > ---8<-8< > > ABS 2.0 In Testing > > > > With version 2, ABS has moved to an rsync method for pulling the ABS > > tree, as part of the changes that needed to be made for our internal > > move from CVS to SVN as our source control mechanism. This means a > > few things: > > > > > > 1) cvsup/csup are no longer required, rsync is used instead > > 2) Configuration moved from /etc/abs/abs.conf to /etc/abs.conf - > > /etc/abs/* are no longer required > > > > > > Also, since category information (ie. base, devel, editors) is no > > longer stored in the repo, makeworld has been updated - check > > makeworld -h for more info. > > ---8<-8< > > Looks great. Get it out there. Done
Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:32 PM, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So... are we going to announce the SVN move, or should I just go on > > ahead and announce the ABS stuff? > > > > Oh, and revised draft: > > > ---8<-8< > ABS 2.0 In Testing > > With version 2, ABS has moved to an rsync method for pulling the ABS > tree, as part of the changes that needed to be made for our internal > move from CVS to SVN as our source control mechanism. This means a > few things: > > > 1) cvsup/csup are no longer required, rsync is used instead > 2) Configuration moved from /etc/abs/abs.conf to /etc/abs.conf - > /etc/abs/* are no longer required > > > Also, since category information (ie. base, devel, editors) is no > longer stored in the repo, makeworld has been updated - check > makeworld -h for more info. > ---8<-8< Looks great. Get it out there. -Dan
Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:32 PM, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So... are we going to announce the SVN move, or should I just go on > > ahead and announce the ABS stuff? > > > > Oh, and revised draft: > > > ---8<-8< > ABS 2.0 In Testing Should read "ABS 2.0 in Core" sorry
Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So... are we going to announce the SVN move, or should I just go on > ahead and announce the ABS stuff? > Oh, and revised draft: ---8<-8< ABS 2.0 In Testing With version 2, ABS has moved to an rsync method for pulling the ABS tree, as part of the changes that needed to be made for our internal move from CVS to SVN as our source control mechanism. This means a few things: 1) cvsup/csup are no longer required, rsync is used instead 2) Configuration moved from /etc/abs/abs.conf to /etc/abs.conf - /etc/abs/* are no longer required Also, since category information (ie. base, devel, editors) is no longer stored in the repo, makeworld has been updated - check makeworld -h for more info. ---8<-8< - had more votes for removal of #3 (filtering outbound traffic) than for inclusion, so it's toast.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
So... are we going to announce the SVN move, or should I just go on ahead and announce the ABS stuff?
Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
Thomas Bächler wrote: I wouldn't mention that at all. Just mention it now uses rsync, whoever filters outbound traffic will know exactly what to do. That's also what I was thinking. It already mentions that rsync is used, but I would insist on it, for example, by changing 1) to something like: 1) cvsup/csup are no longer required, rsync is used instead Then 3) can be removed. But otherwise, eliott's version of 3) is much clearer.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
Travis Willard schrieb: On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sounds fine to me except #3 - I don't understand it (and I probably some users will too). Can you explain it please? Basically, if you had to allow certain ports access to the net through a firewall. rsync uses different ports than cvsup/csup, so anyone with firewall rules to allow ABS to connect will have to change the port in those rules I wouldn't mention that at all. Just mention it now uses rsync, whoever filters outbound traffic will know exactly what to do. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
On 4/12/08, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > May as well tell the people what's happening with ABS. Here's an > announcement draft: > > ---8<-8< > ABS 2.0 In Testing > > With version 2, ABS has moved to an rsync method for pulling the ABS > tree, as part of the changes that needed to be made for our internal > move from CVS to SVN as our source control mechanism. This means a > few things: > > 1) cvsup/csup are no longer required > 2) /etc/abs/supfile.* are no longer required > 3) Anyone opening ports for use with ABS will now need to open port > 837, the rsync port > > Also, since category information (ie. base, devel, editors) is no > longer stored in the repo, makeworld has been updated - check > makeworld -h for more info. > ---8<-8< 3) For ABS users who filter *outbound* traffic: Please note that rsync uses a different port than the previous abs+cvsup combination. Rsync uses port 837, so make sure to adjust any firewall rules accordingly.
Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Roman Kyrylych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sounds fine to me except #3 - I don't understand it (and I probably > some users will too). > Can you explain it please? Basically, if you had to allow certain ports access to the net through a firewall. rsync uses different ports than cvsup/csup, so anyone with firewall rules to allow ABS to connect will have to change the port in those rules
Re: [arch-dev-public] [Draft] ABS announcement
2008/4/12, Travis Willard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > May as well tell the people what's happening with ABS. Here's an > announcement draft: > > ---8<-8< > ABS 2.0 In Testing > > With version 2, ABS has moved to an rsync method for pulling the ABS > tree, as part of the changes that needed to be made for our internal > move from CVS to SVN as our source control mechanism. This means a > few things: > > 1) cvsup/csup are no longer required > 2) /etc/abs/supfile.* are no longer required > 3) Anyone opening ports for use with ABS will now need to open port > 837, the rsync port > > Also, since category information (ie. base, devel, editors) is no > longer stored in the repo, makeworld has been updated - check > makeworld -h for more info. > ---8<-8< > > Thoughts? Sounds fine to me except #3 - I don't understand it (and I probably some users will too). Can you explain it please? Also, since you mentioned SVN move - should we make an announcement about SVN move first (or combine it with ABS newsitem)? *shrugs* (probably this had to be done (as Andy mentioned) as soon as we've made CVS read-only, but oh well). P.S.: now (after abs signoff) csup can be removed from Core, I think. -- Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)
