2008/7/10 Danek Duvall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I've posted a new webrev: > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~dduvall/pkg-newlist2/ > > And the incremental from the previous: > > http://cr.opensolaris.org/~dduvall/pkg-newlist1-2/
http://cr.opensolaris.org/~dduvall/pkg-newlist2/src/modules/client/image.py.html ========== 857 os.path.join(thedir, v, d, "installed")) Use constant here. Only other comment Otherwise, I'm satisfied with your changes. >> > 920 + self.cache_catalogs() >> > 921 + >> > 894 922 if failed: >> > 895 923 raise RuntimeError, (failed, total, >> > succeeded) >> > >> > Is 920 and 921 intentionally before 922/923? Is the thought that we >> > should cache what we can? Is there any concern that if failed was true >> > that we would be caching an inconsistent or bad catalog state? >> >> That was the thought, but it's possible to get a bad catalog. I'll take >> another look at this. > > So my thought here is that the catalog recv() methods should be more > careful to prevent bad data from hitting disk. Right now, they at least > collect all data from the network before writing anything to disk, but they > simply append to the existing file, rather than writing to a new one and > moving it into place. If we make that latter change, I don't think there's > any reason that having cache_catalogs() here will be problematic, while > moving it after the exception raising will mean that the successfully > downloaded catalogs won't be cached. That makes sense and i agree. Cheers, -- Shawn Walker _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
