On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Nagy Gabor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hey guys, >> >> I would *love* it if someone could take this patch and run with it. I >> really just wanted to hash out a possible fix, but unfortunately it >> isn't easy for two reasons: our code structure is a bit rough, and we >> really don't have a hard-and-fast set of rules for continuing or >> failing immediately. If anyone wants to attack the problem further, >> you are more than welcome. Although this patch doesn't cause any >> pactests to fail, I'm a bit wary of applying it as-is, especially to >> maint. >> >> -Dan >> > > 1. The first part of the patch is just a code clean-up, right? Yes, so we don't do the actual extraction in two different places. But it has important consequences because we now handle the two cases differently.
> 2. The add_commit part: > There is something I don't understand: > We have trans->state and handle->trans->state. This is intentional? > Probably you wanted to set handle->trans->state. No, if things are sane, I want to abort the *current* transaction. We are looking at that one's packages. In this case, because this is the add transaction, we should only have one? Or am I completely off and we still make another sub-transaction. > (handle->trans != trans in case of sync transaction.) > Btw, our transaction system is a nightmare, we should have *one* > transaction at every moment... You are saying the same thing I've been thinking for a while. It is a huge mess and I'm not happy about it, so I'm right with you here. :) > I don't know if this immediate stop is better. If we choose this way, http://bugs.archlinux.org/task/11639 needs to get addressed, and preferably in a maint release. I'm all ears for other suggestions. > we should give a BIG warning: Some packages were installed > some packages were not. So your system probably became inconsistent > (broken dependencies etc.) The idea was your system is probably inconsistant because you have broken packages installed (files didn't make it out of the archive properly). > Bye > > P.S.: Transaction rollback would be the ideal solution. (Which is not > an easy game.) We've been saying this for a while too. :) _______________________________________________ pacman-dev mailing list [email protected] http://archlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/pacman-dev
