2011/6/24 Philip Brown <[email protected]>: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:55 AM, John Ellson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm assuming that the ImageMagic fix is small and that we should have a new >> set of packages in a few days, but Dago didn't say when he was going to be >> back. >> >> I'm not even so worried about the web pages on this occasion. It just >> seems to me that some scripts need to be fixed so that web updates are >> atomic and only happen if batching is successful. > > > Would be useful. > However, at my utility script level, there is unfortunately no concept > of a maintainer-grouped-batch at the moment. > There is only individual-package visibility. > > As I said, this isnt a problem with smaller grouped packages, so there > isnt much incentive to write something fancier. > I could in theory write something that would be more package-group > aware. However, it would probably involve a lot of saved state, and a > high (relative) degree of inner complexity. Which would mean high > likelyhood of bugs. > My gut level risk/reward analyzer suggests it would probably end up > causing more problems than it would solve.
Trygve had an idea to create long-lived catalog update objects. I didn't attempt to implement them yet. It looks a bit like implementing version control for catalog, so I'm still looking if there's a way of achieving the same objective (controlling complex updates) in some other, simpler way. Maciej [1] http://buildfarm.opencsw.org/~trygvis/upload-application/opencsw-upload-process-application.html _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
