Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb)
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 09:00:00
Message-Id: 20100117085914.4774f9fa@snowmobile
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] adding a modification timestamp to the installed pkgs database (vdb) by Brian Harring
2010/1/12 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>:
>> 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


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature