From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LgrAG-0003ea-Sg for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:53:53 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5AF43E0431; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32D2EE0431 for ; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:53:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.9] (unknown [151.57.3.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BCAF64781; Tue, 10 Mar 2009 01:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <49B5C82D.2060205@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 02:53:49 +0100 From: Luca Barbato User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (X11/20081205) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Roy Bamford CC: gentoo-council@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-council] Comparison of GLEP 54 and 'live ebuild' proposal References: <1236641374.19203.0@spike> In-Reply-To: <1236641374.19203.0@spike> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 5ce89a25-b833-4bcc-9562-094ed477705c X-Archives-Hash: 9e5a671a0501162057310775c75ed5c2 Roy Bamford wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 2009.03.09 22:47, Thomas Anderson wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Attached is my comparison of the two proposals for live sources. >> Sorry about getting it out late, I had to get ahold of a number >> of >> people to finish writing it up. >> >> Cheers, >> Thomas >> -- >> --------- >> Thomas Anderson >> Gentoo Developer >> ///////// >> Areas of responsibility: >> AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council >> --------- >> >> > > - ------quoted attachment "glep54comp.txt"------ > [snip] >> One important issue is what happens in the following >> scenario: >> 1) world update starts at 20090301@2200hrs. >> 2) this particular update involves 100 packages so it takes >> quite >> along time >> 3) The _live package is not reached until 20090302 at 1AM. >> >> Is the package installed as 20090301 or 20090302? >> > [snip] > > Thomas, > > Live has to expand to the date when the sources were fetched, otherwise > its not 'live' by definition. > As an illustration, I install KDE 4.2 on my 25MHz 486DX with 64Mb RAM. > During the time it takes to build, 'live' is likely to have changed > several times. It isn't exactly a problem (more will follow) > > How do you handle prefetching of sources, or do you forbid > prefetching ? live template ebuild require supporting src_fetch among the other stuff. Keep in mind that once you get an ebuild from the template you can use&reuse it as a normal ebuild (so it works like the mythtv "not so live" ebuilds using svn on fixed revision) > Live infers you fetch the sources at the time you need to build them > and do the live expansion at that time. Without that you don't know how > old your live version is. > > live can change several times a day. With only one day resolution, how > do you handle that? What is in the draft you can find on http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero/glep/liveebuild.rst " Resolution and Version Comparison --------------------------------- At resolution the live keyword is substituted with a timestamp in the form of iso date (``YYYYMMDDhhmm``) and the version comparison follows the normal version comparison rules. " Once you trigger the template -> ebuild generation you are working with a snapshot for all what concerns portage. So once you start you are set. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo Council Member Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero