Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@...>
Subject: Re: adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 08:59:14 +0000
2010/1/12 Brian Harring <ferringb@...>:
>> There's no discussion because Brian refuses to address any comments
>> on the proposal and just says "we should do it anyway, and if you
>> want it done properly instead, do it yourself".
>
> This is a bit of bullshit, per the norm.  There is plenty of
> discussion- the problem is you don't like the direction it's gone.
> You want a whole new vdb- I don't oppose that.  However I'm not
> interested in trying to standardize a new vdb format into PMS, at
> least not yet.

No, I want a decent cache proposal that lets package managers know
what's changed, not one that sometimes (but not always) might let
package managers know when some things have changed, but not what's
changed and not what they can still assume.

> Your argument can basically be summed up as "don't do the minimal
> tweak, do the whole new vdb with defined caches that all can share".

No, I want the well defined caches that all can share.

> The daft thing about this is that you're ignoring one core transition
> issue w/ vdb2- if someone did create a vdb2, they still would need a
> synchronization mechanism (one quite similar to what I'm proposing).

If you replace VDB, you need a well defined cache mechanism. So let's
do that bit now.

> 1) portage/pkgcore support the PMS defined vdb2 while paludis doesn't
> 2) portage/pkgcore are invoked modifying the livefs; vdb1, vdb2 is
> updated.
> 3) paludis is invoked.  vdb1 is updated, vdb2 is not
> 4) portage and pkgcore now cannot rely upon vdb2, since vdb1 now
> contains extra modifications due to paludis not supporting vdb2.

No, we'd not do it that way. If we're ditching VDB, the only sane way
to do it is to ditch it with an rm -fr when creating the new layout.
Keeping two sets of data around is going to lead to breakage no matter
how well we do things.

> Summarizing; the synchronization primitive is needed for any future
> vdb2

No. A *proper* cache validation mechanism is needed. What you're
suggesting isn't enough to use for anything at all.

> Summing it up; what ciaran wants is reliant on what I'm proposing,

No, what I want in the long term is reliant upon implementing a decent
cache setup in the short term.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Attachment:
signature.asc (PGP signature)
Replies:
Re: adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb)
-- Tobias Klausmann
References:
adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb)
-- Brian Harring
Re: adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb)
-- Denis Dupeyron
Re: adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb)
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb)
-- Brian Harring
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb)
Next by thread:
Re: adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb)
Previous by date:
Re: Re: [rfc] layman storage location (again)
Next by date:
Re: adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb)


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.