1 |
On Sun, 23 Nov 2008 21:01:40 -0800 (PST) |
2 |
devsk <funtoos@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> > not relying on custom system daemonsrunning in the background. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Why is a portage daemon such a bad thing? Or hard to do? I would very |
7 |
> much like a daemon running on my system which I can configure to sync |
8 |
> the portage tree once a week (or month if I am lazy), give me a |
9 |
> summary of hot fixes, security fixes in a nice email, push important |
10 |
> announcements and of course, sync caches on detecting changes (which |
11 |
> should be trivial with notify daemons all over the place) etc. Why is |
12 |
> it such a bad thing? |
13 |
|
14 |
Well, as an opt-in solution it might work (though most of what you |
15 |
described is IMO just stuff for cron, no need to reinvent the wheel). |
16 |
|
17 |
What I was saying is that _relying_ on custom system |
18 |
daemons/filesystems for a _core subsystem_ of portage is the wrong |
19 |
way, simply because it adds a substantial amount of complexity to the |
20 |
whole package management architecture. It's one more thing that can |
21 |
(and will) break, one more layer to take into account for any design |
22 |
decisions, one more component that has to be secured, one more obstacle |
23 |
to overcome when you want to analyze/debug things. |
24 |
And special care must be taken if it requires special kernel support |
25 |
and/or external packages. Do you want to make inotify support mandatory |
26 |
to use portage efficiently? (btw, looks like inotify doesn't really |
27 |
work with NFS mounts, which would already make such a daemon completely |
28 |
useless for people using a NFS-shared repository) |
29 |
|
30 |
And finally, if you look at the use cases, a daemon is simply overkill |
31 |
for most cases, as the vast majority of people only use emerge |
32 |
--sync (or wrappers) and maybe layman to change the tree, usually once |
33 |
per day or less often. Do you really want to push another system daemon |
34 |
on users that isn't of use to them? |
35 |
|
36 |
> Its crazy to think that security updates need to be pulled in Linux. |
37 |
|
38 |
That's IMO better be handled via an applet (bug #190397 has some code), |
39 |
or just check for updates after a sync (as syncing is the only |
40 |
way for updates to become available at this time). Maybe a message |
41 |
could be added after sync if there are pending GLSAs, now that the glsa |
42 |
support code is in portage. |
43 |
|
44 |
Marius |