| 1 |
Hi guys, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the |
| 4 |
arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and |
| 5 |
someone was able to easily shoot them down. I believe I have come up |
| 6 |
with better reasoning for using SVN. Someone may still shoot them |
| 7 |
down, but hey, it's worth a try. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
PROBLEM 1 |
| 10 |
Let's say openldap had a problem. So, we decide to mask the latest |
| 11 |
version of openldap, in an effort to roll back to the version that was |
| 12 |
working. Well, we find out that openldap still does not work. So, we |
| 13 |
finally determine that it is library W. So, now we mask library W, in |
| 14 |
an attempt to roll back to the version that was working. Oh no, now |
| 15 |
we find out that library W is used by 20 other packages, that require |
| 16 |
the latest version of library W in order to work. So, now we have to |
| 17 |
mask library W, and 20 packages in order to get our openldap system |
| 18 |
functional, assuming you cared about the 20 other broken packages, |
| 19 |
which may break other packages, which may break yet other packages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Wouldn't it be nice to just go "emerge --revert-portage", which goes |
| 22 |
back to the last exported copy of the portage, that you had from |
| 23 |
subversion? Boy, would that ever be convenient. It would be simple |
| 24 |
enough to store a local history of portage tags that the user was |
| 25 |
using in the past. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
PROBLEM 2 |
| 28 |
Have you ever synced the portage, only to find out there's a broken |
| 29 |
package simply because you synced in the middle of a mirror being |
| 30 |
updated? Well, subversion operations are entirely atomic, meaning no |
| 31 |
need to worry about such silly things. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Also, copies (tags) could be created for every single day, and special |
| 34 |
ones for milestones. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
PROBLEM 3 |
| 37 |
Don't sync more than once a day, or you may be temporarily banned? |
| 38 |
Well, with SVN being tagged only once a day, there would be no need to |
| 39 |
worry about this, seeing that |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
POTENTIAL ISSUES |
| 42 |
Now, I'm not entirely sure of the performance implications of |
| 43 |
subversion for this purpose. So, that would definitely have to either |
| 44 |
be tested, or someone would have to talk with the subversion folks to |
| 45 |
know if it would be a problem for thousands of users to access |
| 46 |
subversion in readonly mode. It would certainly be annoying for a |
| 47 |
developer to go "svn commit", and have to wait for half an hour |
| 48 |
because everyone else is updating their local copies. But, that could |
| 49 |
be solved by mirrors only getting updated once every day, at 12 |
| 50 |
midnight. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
How does one get SVN copied over to mirrors in an atomic way, or does |
| 53 |
the SVN location just get shut down during the mirror update? |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
Any thoughts? |
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives