Brock Pytlik wrote:
> Shawn Walker wrote:
>> Danek Duvall wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 03:31:39PM -0500, Shawn Walker wrote:
>>>
>>>> This seems like something we should be able to figure out on our
>>>> own. We should have some way of "knowing" (by an image attribute or
>>>> a file timestamp?) that the index needs to be synchronized.
>>> And Brock is doing precisely that. The issue is that Brock would
>>> like for
>>> the end-user to know that something had gone wrong, even if we were
>>> able to
>>> fix it successfully, on the expectation that they'll still complain,
>>> so we
>>> can a) figure out that it's happening at all, and b) we can have some
>>> hope
>>> of fixing it.
>>>
>>> A worthy goal, but I'd rather have it silent for now (unless it can't
>>> update the indices in full, either, of course).
>> I guess my point was that we shouldn't ever need to tell the user that
>> they have to go do something like "pkg rebuild-index" -- we should do
>> it if we need to (on reboot in this case). In this particular case,
>> it looks like this gets back to the discussion of having an SMF
>> service manage the search reindexing.
>>
> Now you've lost me. Are you talking about a different bug ("we should
> check if the index needs fixing at boot"), or is this still this bug? I
> agree, such a service would be nice to have, but I don't see how it's
> relevant here.
It's relevant here in the sense that the message you are printing
indicates that the user needs to perform "pkg rebuild-index" when the
boot into the new environment. That was solely the angle from which I
was approaching.
My short response is, "don't worry; not this wad."
--
Shawn Walker
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
