| 1 |
On 2018.01.27 08:30, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> W dniu pią, 26.01.2018 o godzinie 20∶48 -0500, użytkownik Michael |
| 3 |
> Orlitzky napisał: |
| 4 |
> > On 01/26/2018 06:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > |
| 6 |
> > > The alternate option of using file hash has the advantage of |
| 7 |
> having |
| 8 |
> > > a more balanced split. Furthermore, since hashes are stored |
| 9 |
> > > in Manifests using them is zero-cost. However, this solution has |
| 10 |
> two |
| 11 |
> > > significant disadvantages: |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > 1. The hash values are unknown for newly-downloaded distfiles, so |
| 14 |
> > > ``repoman`` (or an equivalent tool) would have to use a |
| 15 |
> temporary |
| 16 |
> > > directory before locating the file in appropriate subdirectory. |
| 17 |
> > > |
| 18 |
> > > 2. User-provided distfiles (e.g. for fetch-restricted packages) |
| 19 |
> with |
| 20 |
> > > hash mismatches would be placed in the wrong subdirectory, |
| 21 |
> > > potentially causing confusing errors. |
| 22 |
> > > |
| 23 |
> > |
| 24 |
> > The filename proposal sounds fine, so this is only academic, but: |
| 25 |
> are |
| 26 |
> > these two points really disadvantages? |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > What are we worried about in using a temporary directory? Copying |
| 29 |
> across |
| 30 |
> > filesystem boundaries? Except in rare cases, $DISTDIR itself will be |
| 31 |
> > usable a temporary location (on the same filesystem), won't it? |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Why add the extra complexity when there's no need for one? Note that |
| 34 |
> there's also the problem of resuming transfers, so in the end we're |
| 35 |
> talking about permanent temporary directory where we keep unfinished |
| 36 |
> transfers. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> > For the second point, portage is going to tell me where to put the |
| 39 |
> file, |
| 40 |
> > isn't it? Then no matter what garbage I download, won't portage look |
| 41 |
> for |
| 42 |
> > it in the right place, because where-to-put-it is determined using |
| 43 |
> the |
| 44 |
> > same manifest hash that determines where-to-find-it? |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> No, it won't. Why would it? You're going to call something like: |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> edistadd foo.tar.gz bar.tar.gz |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> ...and it will place the files in the right subdirectories. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> -- |
| 53 |
> Best regards, |
| 54 |
> Michał Górny |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
Michał, |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
How does this work for fetch restricted files and finding other files |
| 63 |
no longer on the mirrors? |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Its no longer a download and move it to $DISTFILES, or is it? |
| 66 |
Whatever it is, users will need to do it unless files in $DISTFILES |
| 67 |
are accepted by package managers if they are not found in the main |
| 68 |
structure. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
Regards, |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
Roy Bamford |
| 74 |
(Neddyseagoon) a member of |
| 75 |
elections |
| 76 |
gentoo-ops |
| 77 |
forum-mods |
Archives