1 |
Jimmy Jazz wrote: |
2 |
> Instead /sbin/functions.sh has helped me a lot to write a script |
3 |
> that does approximately the same but in ash and with candies too :) |
4 |
|
5 |
Now you're making more sense -- you prefer baselayout written in bash |
6 |
because you are copying and mangling its code in ways that the |
7 |
developers didn't intend. I see. |
8 |
|
9 |
FYI, baselayout-2 no longer requires bash. |
10 |
|
11 |
> Right, a shell is not what handles the best concurrency issues but |
12 |
> "wait" and "jobs" have been quite improved. If you have an example i |
13 |
> could try. Also, that makes life exciting and i cheer you up. I'm sure |
14 |
> you will succeed and improve gentoo even better :) |
15 |
|
16 |
The problem is that a few baselayout operations can be running |
17 |
concurrently, and these processes will share the same resources (e.g. |
18 |
service state files). baselayout-1 makes very little effort to serialize |
19 |
access to any of these resources, resulting in several highly repeatable |
20 |
failure conditions due to races. |
21 |
|
22 |
The original bug report: |
23 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=154670 |
24 |
|
25 |
My attempt to fix it: |
26 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166545 |
27 |
|
28 |
However, it turns out my locking implementation can be easily broken and |
29 |
is not race free. |
30 |
|
31 |
> I'm not quite good in politics but i will follow your advice :). I just |
32 |
> have feared you will definitely drop baselayout-1. (anyway, maintaining |
33 |
> two different kinds of software that do approximately the same thing is |
34 |
> a pain). I will need to reconvert sooner or later. |
35 |
|
36 |
I'm not involved in baselayout development, but yes, I am fairly sure |
37 |
that baselayout-1 will be completely dropped in the near future. It's |
38 |
partially unmaintained at the moment -- there are known bugs which will |
39 |
not be fixed in the 1.x branches. |
40 |
|
41 |
Daniel |
42 |
-- |
43 |
gentoo-kernel@g.o mailing list |