[Yum] Gziped headers patch

[seth vidal]

On Sat, 2002-06-15 at 18:25, Konstantin Riabitsev wrote:
> 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.

Sounds reasonable enough. I hate breaking things for people right away,
though. (too much sysadmin in me ;)

 
> 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. :)
> 

I do think adding header.info versioning would be wise, though, just for
future use.

Why don't we make it a clean break, then.

0.9.0 will have a changed directory name on the server and gzipped
headers? That sound ok to everyone?

maybe a small bit of code on the client, so that if sees a non-gzipped
header it removes it and gets a new one. just in case.

-sv


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum/attachments/20020615/cc17d9fe/attachment-0001.pgp