Dnia December 16, 2019 1:16:12 PM UTC, Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): >>>>>> 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.
Actually, what about the original example provided by Vadim? It's a game + translations, all rights reserved. We can't mirror them but we can fetch them. > >Ulrich > >> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/371413 -- Best regards, Michał Górny
