From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1G4okM-0008M4-SU for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:56:35 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k6O0stQ9024141; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:54:55 GMT Received: from poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.21]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6O0nLJR028595 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 00:49:21 GMT Received: from poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EA5DF200042 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:49:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tu-clausthal.de (poseidon [139.174.2.21]) by poseidon.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8F3D1FFE43 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:49:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de ([139.174.241.94] verified) by tu-clausthal.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTP id 15376786 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:49:20 +0200 From: "Hemmann, Volker Armin" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Portage Storage using SVN Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:49:20 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 References: <9b1675090607230142m295cf441hda16b6c0e29b08f6@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9b1675090607230142m295cf441hda16b6c0e29b08f6@mail.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607240249.20239.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by PureMessage V4.7 at tu-clausthal.de X-Archives-Salt: 3bd4b4f9-a262-4a65-a876-7c00e6fc7677 X-Archives-Hash: 9e947655cbc4691ae250d4e7e6c19850 On Sunday 23 July 2006 10:42, Trenton Adams wrote: > Hi guys, > > I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the > arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and > someone was able to easily shoot them down. I believe I have come up > with better reasoning for using SVN. Someone may still shoot them > down, but hey, it's worth a try. > > PROBLEM 1 > Let's say openldap had a problem. So, we decide to mask the latest > version of openldap, in an effort to roll back to the version that was > working. Well, we find out that openldap still does not work. So, we > finally determine that it is library W. So, now we mask library W, in > an attempt to roll back to the version that was working. Oh no, now > we find out that library W is used by 20 other packages, that require > the latest version of library W in order to work. So, now we have to > mask library W, and 20 packages in order to get our openldap system > functional, assuming you cared about the 20 other broken packages, > which may break other packages, which may break yet other packages. no, you don't. You put a dependency for libraryW version XY-working into the openldap related ebuilds. > > Wouldn't it be nice to just go "emerge --revert-portage", which goes > back to the last exported copy of the portage, that you had from > subversion? Boy, would that ever be convenient. It would be simple > enough to store a local history of portage tags that the user was > using in the past. why not do a normal emerge sync&& emerge -au world? the updated openldap package will pull in the right library W, and if other apps need library W+1, well that is where slots are used. Your problem is none. It is solved every day within the portage tree. No svn needed for that. > > PROBLEM 3 > Don't sync more than once a day, or you may be temporarily banned? > Well, with SVN being tagged only once a day, there would be no need to > worry about this, seeing that you are banned because of the enormous waste of bandwidth if you sync every odd hours. I don't see where svn would resolve that. Even if all mirrors would only updated once a day (what a nightmare - a broken package may stay for 24h or more in the tree, instead being replaced as soon as the dev notices), there would be people syncing more than once in 24h. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list