On Mon, 2019-12-16 at 14:16 +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, 16 Dec 2019, Michał Górny wrote: > > Proposed solution > > ================= > > The current proposal is based on extending the current URI syntax to > > permit excluding individual files from the restriction. The idea is to > > prepend 'fetch+' to protocol to undo fetch restriction, or to prepend > > 'mirror+' to undo fetch & mirror restrictions. > > Example 1: removing mirror restriction from files > > RESTRICT="mirror" > > SRC_URI="https://example.com/you-cant-mirror-this.tar.bz2 > > mirror+https://example.com/but-you-can-mirror-this.tar.gz"; > > Example 2: removing fetch & mirror restriction from files > > RESTRICT="fetch" > > SRC_URI="https://example.com/you-cant-fetch-this.zip > > mirror+https://example.com/but-you-can-mirror-this.tar.gz"; > > Example 3: removing fetch restriction while leaving mirror restriction > > RESTRICT="fetch" > > SRC_URI="https://example.com/you-cant-fetch-this.zip > > fetch+https://example.com/you-cant-mirror-this.tar.bz2"; > > Looks good, but what is slightly confusing is that it doesn't map > one-to-one to the RESTRICT tokens: > > - RESTRICT="mirror" enables mirror restriction, and it is undone by > "mirror+", as expected. > > - RESTRICT="fetch" enables both fetch and mirror restriction, but it is > undone by "mirror+" as well, not by "fetch+" (which disables only > fetch restriction). > > I had already asked this in bug 371413 [1], but is there an actual usage > case for example 3? Because if there isn't, we might get away with only > supporting "mirror+", which should be less error prone. >
Does this really solve the problem? The labels are still the other way around, except that you throw 'fetch+' away as invalid. While at it, I'm wondering if 'mirror+mirror://foo' can be confusing. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
