| 1 |
2010/1/17 Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o>: |
| 2 |
>> No, we'd not do it that way. If we're ditching VDB, the only sane way |
| 3 |
>> to do it is to ditch it with an rm -fr when creating the new layout. |
| 4 |
>> Keeping two sets of data around is going to lead to breakage no matter |
| 5 |
>> how well we do things. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Please also provide a downgrade path, i.e. a way to go back from |
| 8 |
> the new DB version to the current one should it be necessary (if |
| 9 |
> there is no such path, Murphy will see to it that the new format |
| 10 |
> breaks in interesting[0] ways). |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
That probably wouldn't be possible. One of the reasons we want to |
| 13 |
ditch VDB is to allow multiple slots of the same cat/pkg-ver to be |
| 14 |
installed in parallel (which is in turn necessary to allow some of the |
| 15 |
more hideous dynamic slot abuses that people are after). VDB doesn't |
| 16 |
support that, so you probably won't be able to go back once you've |
| 17 |
started using new features. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
*shrug* all of this is years off, anyway. It's at least EAPI 5 |
| 20 |
territory. We can work all this out later if EAPI 4 ever happens. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives