1 |
On 01/26/2018 06:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> The alternate option of using file hash has the advantage of having |
4 |
> a more balanced split. Furthermore, since hashes are stored |
5 |
> in Manifests using them is zero-cost. However, this solution has two |
6 |
> significant disadvantages: |
7 |
> |
8 |
> 1. The hash values are unknown for newly-downloaded distfiles, so |
9 |
> ``repoman`` (or an equivalent tool) would have to use a temporary |
10 |
> directory before locating the file in appropriate subdirectory. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> 2. User-provided distfiles (e.g. for fetch-restricted packages) with |
13 |
> hash mismatches would be placed in the wrong subdirectory, |
14 |
> potentially causing confusing errors. |
15 |
> |
16 |
|
17 |
The filename proposal sounds fine, so this is only academic, but: are |
18 |
these two points really disadvantages? |
19 |
|
20 |
What are we worried about in using a temporary directory? Copying across |
21 |
filesystem boundaries? Except in rare cases, $DISTDIR itself will be |
22 |
usable a temporary location (on the same filesystem), won't it? |
23 |
|
24 |
For the second point, portage is going to tell me where to put the file, |
25 |
isn't it? Then no matter what garbage I download, won't portage look for |
26 |
it in the right place, because where-to-put-it is determined using the |
27 |
same manifest hash that determines where-to-find-it? |