Danek Duvall wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 10:59:38AM -0700, Joe Di Pol wrote: > >> For example would it be like: >> >> add file ... path="foobar/doc/CHANGELIST.txt" >> add set name=my.changelist value="foobar/doc/CHANGELIST.txt" > > You could do that, but that potentially would require a second lookup in > order to retrieve the file. Assume that in the future you'd be able to get > back the "my.changelist" set action of a package (or multiple packages) > without having to get the entire manifest, so then you'd have to do a > search to find out the hash, and then you could retrieve the file.
Gotcha. Any idea how far in the future this would be? > >> Or (gulp) this: >> >> add file ... path="foobar/doc/CHANGELIST.txt" >> add set name=my.changelist set value="file/0/<hashval of CHANGELIST.txt>" >> >> The later doesn't seem very useful since you don't know the URL at >> package publish time. > > Why don't you? OK, so you could. I guess in this case it would look like: add set name=my.changelist set value="<hashval of CHANGELIST.txt>" And the client would expand it to a URL at runtime. Looks like something I can experiment with now. But is the hashing algorithm a stable interface? If I'm some random package maintainer, can I always depend on using the SHA-1 hash? The first approach seems more robust and friendly for a package maintainer (albeit a bit more complicated and costly for the client). Joe _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
