Re: Using shell commands versus C equivalents

Quoting youshi10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (from Wed, 13 Jun 2007 14:17:18 -0700 (PDT)):

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007, Rick C. Petty wrote:

Now another question is whether the pkg_* tools can handle multiple
processes managing the ports at the same time. For the mostpart, this is
true. Without looking at the code, I would expect that the only
contentions would be when trying to update the +REQUIRED_BY files.
Everything else should be just fine; you're not supposed to be installing
the same port multiple times at the exact same time, but maybe a lock could
be held on the package directory (i.e. /var/db/pkg/$PKG_NAME). Again, I
don't believe this is strictly necessary.

Currently, no, and this is a condition that's contingent for a fellow
SoC'er's project. The mentor said that all that *should* occur is there
should be an flock, but that was it. So instead of making more work for
him and since I am modifying pkg_* already, I thought it would be best
to just make my modifications to simplify his end (he still has a ways
to go on the dependency tracking I think).

It goes a bit deeper than the +REQUIRED_BY files, in particular with
the +CONTENTS, etc files as the pkg_* tools are enumerating the
packages currently on the system, their dependencies, owning files,
etc. Perhaps a global .lock file of some kind in the package
directories would be the way to go though.

Stephen already pointed out the patches which speed up pkg_create and bsd.port.mk. I want to highlight the bsd.port.mk change which takes the package dependency info from the +CONTENTS file. So any changes by the other student should take this into account...

Bye,
Alexander.

--
Some rise by sin and some by virtue fall.

http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net: PGP ID = B0063FE7
http://www.FreeBSD.org netchild @ FreeBSD.org : PGP ID = 72077137
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages

  • ports system woes
    ... What exactly "removing dependency on package" means? ... port installs?). ... Allow it 3-5 hours per 1000 installed ports 8-) The good thing is that ...
    (freebsd-hackers)
  • Re: Upgrading/installing packages
    ... > I've been playing around with different versions of Linux and FreeBSD the ... > source package didn't work out. ... I assume you updated your portstree, are you aware of the ports ... About the dependency problem, it was to my understanding that the port ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
  • Re: Speaking of trivial tools
    ... comm -23 - $TMPFILE ... Hand it a package name as an argument, and it'll print out the names ... interesting things - like a package that had a dependency on a newer ... broken pkg-plist, ports that were not updated correctly, etc. ...
    (freebsd-hackers)
  • Re: CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is prematurewithbuggy 6.3
    ... If the new php package works fine on your build box, ... For most of the ports this works, ... Even debian has no plus point there (at least in our environment at ... I've had a disk down of course it was in gmirror and the situation ...
    (freebsd-stable)
  • Re: CLARITY re: challenge: end of life for 6.2 is prematurewithbuggy 6.3
    ... If the new php package works fine on your build box, ... For most of the ports this works, ... just my effort with debian is much smaller than fbsd ports. ... I've had a disk down of course it was in gmirror and the situation ...
    (freebsd-stable)