rsyncing signed tarballs (Re: [79599] trunk/base)

Joshua Root jmr at
Tue Jun 21 03:12:11 PDT 2011

On 2011-6-21 16:09 , Rainer Müller wrote:
> On 2011-06-20 12:55, Joshua Root wrote:
>> On 2011-6-20 09:25 , Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> So we're still rsyncing, but now we're rsyncing a tarball instead of
>>> individual files? Could you discuss this change a little? (Motivation,
>>> benefits...)
>> I'm pretty sure we discussed the lack of integrity checking for base and
>> dports previously. The signature is the whole point of the exercise; the
>> tarball is just because a detached signature for a single file was
>> easiest to
>> implement.
> But I don't remember we ever evaluated the impact of using a tarball
> instead of
> individual files. I am not yet convinced this will scale in the same way
> it did before.

In what way do you expect it may not scale? I did test this before I
made the change, and it performs fine on a 1.8 GHz G5. Rsync reported a
speedup of 506 for ports and 290 for base when selfupdating today.

- Josh

More information about the macports-dev mailing list