Actually, these metadata releases ARE needed in prod, since they are
accessed at runtime.  That is a much stronger argument for NOT using a
single uber-release to manage this data.

The more I think about this, the more it's clear we need these "shadow"
metadata releases....

On Sat, Aug 7, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Phillip Moore <[email protected]>wrote:

> I couldn't leave this alone and hacked up a script to generate the
> retroactive metadata for existing releases.
>
> However, the experiment failed, for a very subtle reason.   The idea was to
> create a single release with all the old metadata in it.  That won't work
> because the releases have varying platforms, and if you create a
> sparc64.sunos.5.10 install for the few releases that need it, then there
> won't be any metadata in that install for the releases that were NOT built
> natively on that platform.
>
> Look at the contents of /efs/dev/perl5/metadata/next/install to see what I
> mean.  It won't be obvious, and if you care, ask and I'll explain.
>
> Instead, we need to create metadata *releases*, side by side with the real
> releases.  For example, if we have a legacy release with no metadata, like
> perl5/Foo/1.0-ml01, then we will need to create perl5/Foo/1.0-ml01-metadata,
> AND we'll have to create the SAME set of releaselinks that point the
> underlying release with similar names.  If there's a perl5/Foo/1.0, then
> we'll have to create a perl5/Foo/1.0-metadata.
>
> This will allow us to create these metadata releases with the SAME set of
> platforms as the underlying release, and generate the missing metadata.conf
> files for them.
>
> The code to do so will also have to distribute these "shadow" metadata
> releases, but only if the underlying release has been disted.   Strictly
> speaking, these are ONLY needed for building things, so they never become
> prod, and we really only need them in d.lvt anyway.
>
> This is, I admit, kinda ugly.   I have one other possible trick that MIGHT
> work with the perl5/metadata concept, similar to how the "mdl" script
> handles creating symlink tree to releases that have varying platforms, but
> I'm not sure if that will work.  I know the above will.
>
> I'll follow up again when I've worked through more of this problem...
>
_______________________________________________
EFS-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://mailman.openefs.org/mailman/listinfo/efs-dev

Reply via email to