[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: status of forked zlibs in rsync and zsync



On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 08:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 08:55 -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > 
> > > At present we are
> > > still in the contradictory and unsatisfactory position of 
> > shipping rsync
> > > with an internal forked zlib but refusing to accept zsync 
> > as a package
> > > because it does exactly the same thing.
> > 
> > I hope this would not mean that rsync would be discontinued 
> > in favour of zsync.
> > 
> > The zsync website states:
> > 
> > "[W]here rsync is designed for synchronising data from one 
> > computer to another..., zsync is designed for file 
> > distribution, with one file on a server to be distributed to 
> > thousands of downloaders."
> > 
> > I use rsync every day for exactly its intended purpose, but I 
> > have NO use of the latter function.
> 
> No, that's not the idea at all. As you say, it wouldn't make any sense.
> zsync isn't a replacement for rsync.

To clarify, we want to have zsync in the distribution as well as rsync,
but it is being refused because it has an internal zlib (even though
rsync has an internal zlib too, and _is_ in the distribution). zsync is
orthogonal to rsync. they do not fight in any way. :) the ultimate
resolution of this will be either to have rsync and zsync work with the
system zlib package, or to ship the variant zlib as a separate package.
i'm just trying to bump the process along.

-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]