| 1 |
On Sunday 23 July 2006 10:42, Trenton Adams wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi guys, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the |
| 5 |
> arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and |
| 6 |
> someone was able to easily shoot them down. I believe I have come up |
| 7 |
> with better reasoning for using SVN. Someone may still shoot them |
| 8 |
> down, but hey, it's worth a try. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> PROBLEM 1 |
| 11 |
> Let's say openldap had a problem. So, we decide to mask the latest |
| 12 |
> version of openldap, in an effort to roll back to the version that was |
| 13 |
> working. Well, we find out that openldap still does not work. So, we |
| 14 |
> finally determine that it is library W. So, now we mask library W, in |
| 15 |
> an attempt to roll back to the version that was working. Oh no, now |
| 16 |
> we find out that library W is used by 20 other packages, that require |
| 17 |
> the latest version of library W in order to work. So, now we have to |
| 18 |
> mask library W, and 20 packages in order to get our openldap system |
| 19 |
> functional, assuming you cared about the 20 other broken packages, |
| 20 |
> which may break other packages, which may break yet other packages. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
no, you don't. You put a dependency for libraryW version XY-working into the |
| 23 |
openldap related ebuilds. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Wouldn't it be nice to just go "emerge --revert-portage", which goes |
| 28 |
> back to the last exported copy of the portage, that you had from |
| 29 |
> subversion? Boy, would that ever be convenient. It would be simple |
| 30 |
> enough to store a local history of portage tags that the user was |
| 31 |
> using in the past. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
why not do a normal emerge sync&& emerge -au world? |
| 34 |
the updated openldap package will pull in the right library W, and if other |
| 35 |
apps need library W+1, well that is where slots are used. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Your problem is none. It is solved every day within the portage tree. No svn |
| 38 |
needed for that. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> PROBLEM 3 |
| 42 |
> Don't sync more than once a day, or you may be temporarily banned? |
| 43 |
> Well, with SVN being tagged only once a day, there would be no need to |
| 44 |
> worry about this, seeing that |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
you are banned because of the enormous waste of bandwidth if you sync every |
| 47 |
odd hours. I don't see where svn would resolve that. Even if all mirrors |
| 48 |
would only updated once a day (what a nightmare - a broken package may stay |
| 49 |
for 24h or more in the tree, instead being replaced as soon as the dev |
| 50 |
notices), there would be people syncing more than once in 24h. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
-- |
| 53 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives