[gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn
Hi guys, I'm just curious about something. I've noticed many people report problems with their repository syncing simply because someone was in the middle of committing to the repository. Couldn't this be resolved by replacing the syncing mechanism with *svn* as opposed to rsync? After all, it does have atomic transactions, and you cannot get a partially updated repository when you use it. If this was to be done, I would suggest making tags every day, such as -MM-DD. Then any other tags could also be made on milestones such as 2006.0 for that release. One other benefit of this mechanism, that I can think of, would be that I could easily roll back to my last sync date or release, if some of the updated ebuilds caused me problems. Any thoughts? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn
On Monday 19 June 2006 09:58, Trenton Adams wrote: Hi guys, I'm just curious about something. I've noticed many people report problems with their repository syncing simply because someone was in the middle of committing to the repository. Couldn't this be resolved by replacing the syncing mechanism with *svn* as opposed to rsync? After all, it does have atomic transactions, and you cannot get a partially updated repository when you use it. Perhaps it could. But I don't think that problem is important enough to make Portage usage depend on Subversion. [...] One other benefit of this mechanism, that I can think of, would be that I could easily roll back to my last sync date or release, if some of the updated ebuilds caused me problems. That really should not be necessary. What you should of course do is file a bug so the problems can be fixed for everyone. Any thoughts? Currently the developers are still using CVS for the tree. Migrating to another VCS does have a high priority but they have not even chosen which VCS to migrate to. There is a Google Summer of Code project which is supposed to test the different options to give a good basis for making a decision. This, however, affects the Gentoo developers only. -- Bo Andresen pgpQeoybDhjiR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn
Thanks for the reply. Interspersed comments below... On 6/19/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 19 June 2006 09:58, Trenton Adams wrote: Hi guys, I'm just curious about something. I've noticed many people report problems with their repository syncing simply because someone was in the middle of committing to the repository. Couldn't this be resolved by replacing the syncing mechanism with *svn* as opposed to rsync? After all, it does have atomic transactions, and you cannot get a partially updated repository when you use it. Perhaps it could. But I don't think that problem is important enough to make Portage usage depend on Subversion. Well, it wouldn't have to *depend* on subversion. The rsync could still be used. All that would need to happen is that the location that people would be able to rsync with could be checked out regularly. Then the rsync could have an exclude for the .svn directories, or whatever administrative directories there would be, depending on the VCS you use. [...] One other benefit of this mechanism, that I can think of, would be that I could easily roll back to my last sync date or release, if some of the updated ebuilds caused me problems. That really should not be necessary. What you should of course do is file a bug so the problems can be fixed for everyone. Well, one problem I had was not actually *really* bug. It was a requirement that I did not fulfill, but was unable to figure it out instantly. So, rolling back would have been very useful at that time. It would just add another level of safety. Any thoughts? Currently the developers are still using CVS for the tree. Migrating to another VCS does have a high priority but they have not even chosen which VCS to migrate to. There is a Google Summer of Code project which is supposed to test the different options to give a good basis for making a decision. This, however, affects the Gentoo developers only. -- Bo Andresen -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn
On Monday 19 June 2006 10:58, Trenton Adams wrote: One other benefit of this mechanism, that I can think of, would be that I could easily roll back to my last sync date or release, if some of the updated ebuilds caused me problems. That really should not be necessary. What you should of course do is file a bug so the problems can be fixed for everyone. Well, one problem I had was not actually *really* bug. It was a requirement that I did not fulfill, but was unable to figure it out instantly. So, rolling back would have been very useful at that time. It would just add another level of safety. If an ebuild is removed from the tree while you still need it then chances are that others need it too. Then it is indeed a bug. If you need an ebuild that has been removed from the tree it is available from the cvs [1]. As mentioned in my previous mail cvs is going to be replaced by a superior VCS hopefully within this year. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi -- Bo Andresen pgpwKQYTrhL6F.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn
On 6/19/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 19 June 2006 10:58, Trenton Adams wrote: One other benefit of this mechanism, that I can think of, would be that I could easily roll back to my last sync date or release, if some of the updated ebuilds caused me problems. That really should not be necessary. What you should of course do is file a bug so the problems can be fixed for everyone. Well, one problem I had was not actually *really* bug. It was a requirement that I did not fulfill, but was unable to figure it out instantly. So, rolling back would have been very useful at that time. It would just add another level of safety. If an ebuild is removed from the tree while you still need it then chances are that others need it too. Then it is indeed a bug. If you need an ebuild that has been removed from the tree it is available from the cvs [1]. As mentioned in my previous mail cvs is going to be replaced by a superior VCS hopefully within this year. Sorry, you misunderstood what I was saying because I wasn't clear enough. I meant if I missed a required step, not missed a dependency. For example, with openldap, you're supposed to slapcat before upgrading, and slapadd after upgrading, or you could have database problems. I did not know this. So when I went from 2.2-2.3, I had problems. But, I didn't have time to get it working, as I needed it up and running NOW. So, I reverted to the old package by masking the new one, and then went to find out why it occurred after the fact. This is one simple example of potential problems. But something on a wider scale could occur. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi -- Bo Andresen -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn
On Monday 19 June 2006 22:15, Trenton Adams wrote: For example, with openldap, you're supposed to slapcat before upgrading, and slapadd after upgrading, or you could have database problems. I did not know this. So when I went from 2.2-2.3, I had problems. But, I didn't have time to get it working, as I needed it up and running NOW. So, I reverted to the old package by masking the new one, and then went to find out why it occurred after the fact. This is one simple example of potential problems. But something on a wider scale could occur. Did you have a look at FEATURES=buildpkg? Look at man 5 make.conf. While it takes up a couple of GB it allows you to downgrade to a previously installed version without needing to compile it again. -- Bo Andresen pgpbtJLXlTIea.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: On Monday 19 June 2006 22:15, Trenton Adams wrote: For example, with openldap, you're supposed to slapcat before upgrading, and slapadd after upgrading, or you could have database problems. I did not know this. So when I went from 2.2-2.3, I had problems. But, I didn't have time to get it working, as I needed it up and running NOW. So, I reverted to the old package by masking the new one, and then went to find out why it occurred after the fact. This is one simple example of potential problems. But something on a wider scale could occur. Did you have a look at FEATURES=buildpkg? Look at man 5 make.conf. While it takes up a couple of GB it allows you to downgrade to a previously installed version without needing to compile it again. Or rescue yourself if you delete something and portage, gcc or something critical doesn't work anymore. I have been there, twice, and it is a life saver for sure. I did NOT get my shirt though. :-( Dale :-) :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
