| 1 |
2010/1/12 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>: |
| 2 |
>> There's no discussion because Brian refuses to address any comments |
| 3 |
>> on the proposal and just says "we should do it anyway, and if you |
| 4 |
>> want it done properly instead, do it yourself". |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> This is a bit of bullshit, per the norm. There is plenty of |
| 7 |
> discussion- the problem is you don't like the direction it's gone. |
| 8 |
> You want a whole new vdb- I don't oppose that. However I'm not |
| 9 |
> interested in trying to standardize a new vdb format into PMS, at |
| 10 |
> least not yet. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
No, I want a decent cache proposal that lets package managers know |
| 13 |
what's changed, not one that sometimes (but not always) might let |
| 14 |
package managers know when some things have changed, but not what's |
| 15 |
changed and not what they can still assume. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Your argument can basically be summed up as "don't do the minimal |
| 18 |
> tweak, do the whole new vdb with defined caches that all can share". |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
No, I want the well defined caches that all can share. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> The daft thing about this is that you're ignoring one core transition |
| 23 |
> issue w/ vdb2- if someone did create a vdb2, they still would need a |
| 24 |
> synchronization mechanism (one quite similar to what I'm proposing). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
If you replace VDB, you need a well defined cache mechanism. So let's |
| 27 |
do that bit now. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
> 1) portage/pkgcore support the PMS defined vdb2 while paludis doesn't |
| 30 |
> 2) portage/pkgcore are invoked modifying the livefs; vdb1, vdb2 is |
| 31 |
> updated. |
| 32 |
> 3) paludis is invoked. vdb1 is updated, vdb2 is not |
| 33 |
> 4) portage and pkgcore now cannot rely upon vdb2, since vdb1 now |
| 34 |
> contains extra modifications due to paludis not supporting vdb2. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
No, we'd not do it that way. If we're ditching VDB, the only sane way |
| 37 |
to do it is to ditch it with an rm -fr when creating the new layout. |
| 38 |
Keeping two sets of data around is going to lead to breakage no matter |
| 39 |
how well we do things. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Summarizing; the synchronization primitive is needed for any future |
| 42 |
> vdb2 |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
No. A *proper* cache validation mechanism is needed. What you're |
| 45 |
suggesting isn't enough to use for anything at all. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> Summing it up; what ciaran wants is reliant on what I'm proposing, |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
No, what I want in the long term is reliant upon implementing a decent |
| 50 |
cache setup in the short term. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives