[gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn

[gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn

[Trenton Adams]

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
YYYY-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

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1318 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn

[Trenton Adams]

Thanks for the reply. Interspersed comments below...

On 6/19/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> 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

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1063 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn

[Trenton Adams]

On 6/19/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> 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

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 799 bytes --]

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

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn

[Teresa and Dale]

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

Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn

[Trenton Adams]

Yeah, that's what I used to revert to the old openldap.  Perhaps that
is enough.  Hmmm.

On 6/19/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@zlin.dk> 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.
>
> --
> Bo Andresen
>
>
>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list