Re: Disarchive update

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hey!

zimoun <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> skribis:

> Timothy made this table months ago:
>
>         tar+gz        9090  52.0%
>         git           5294  30.3%
>         tar+xz        1184  06.8%
>         tar+bz2        775  04.4%
>         tar            393  02.2%
>         zip            273  01.6%
>         svn-multi      175  01.0%
>         svn            125  00.7%
>         file            51  00.3%
>         computed        38  00.2%
>         hg              36  00.2%
>         unknown-uri     20  00.1%
>         tar+gz?         15  00.1%
>         tar+lz          13  00.1%
>         tar+Z            4  00.0%
>         cvs              3  00.0%
>         bzr              3  00.0%
>         tar+lzma         2  00.0%
>         total        17494 100.0%
>
> What is really missing is XZ and Bzip2 support in Disarchive, I guess.

Definitely, we know what to work on next!

> Timothy was working on feeding the database using each release.  Well,
> you can give a look at:
>
> <https://git.ngyro.com/preservation-of-guix>

Ah nice!  I had completely overlooked this.

[...]

>> A plan we can already deploy would be:
>>
>>   1. Add the disarchive.guix.gnu.org DNS entry, pointing to berlin.
>>
>>   2. On berlin, add an mcron job that periodically copies the output of
>>      the latest “disarchive-collection” build to a directory, say
>>      /srv/disarchive.  Thus, the database would accumulate tarball
>>      metadata over time.
>>
>>   3. Add an nginx route so that /srv/disarchive is served at
>>      https://disarchive.guix.gnu.org.
>>
>>   4. Add disarchive.guix.gnu.org to (guix download).
>
> To replace (or add to) the current ’%disarchive-mirrors’ right?

Exactly.

> Going this road (use Cuirass), why not generating the sources.json
> similarly?   Instead of the hack using the website builder.

I guess that would also work, indeed.  Then we could make /source.json
redirect to ci.guix.gnu.org/whatever/latest.

> On my side, I will try to resume what I started months ago: knowing the
> SWH coverage.  For instance, on this ~92% of tarballs, how many are
> currently stored into SWH?  Well, do not take your breath and I would be
> happy if someone beats me. ;-)

Yup, we definitely need that kind of info now!

Ludo’.