jmr wrote:
Shawn Walker wrote:
Stephen Hahn wrote:
* Shawn Walker <[email protected]> [2009-02-17 18:29]:
Stephen Hahn wrote:
* Shawn Walker <[email protected]> [2009-02-17 17:53]:
to check on the types of the various fields in the authority/0
response. There are a couple of fields that I believe need to be
list-valued, where the current implementation would only consider
a single value for the field as relevant.
Does "current implementation" refer to the authority/0 proposal?
No, it refers to what we have today, prior to authority/0. (As an
example, we only allow a single origin server per authority.) Reading
5871, I'm mostly concerned about why authority_name isn't required,
and by the growing set of booleans.
authority_name would be required information for the repository, but
not in a .p5i file. It doesn't make sense to require the
authority_name if you provide the origin URL since we should be able
to retrieve the authority name from the origin URL. The only problem
I can see is that if the origin URL is for a depot server that doesn't
provide the authority/0 operation, then we have no name for the
authority.
Perhaps the right answer is to require the authority name in the .p5i
file, but let any authority/0 response from the server override any of
the single value authority fields provided in the .p5i file.
How will the API handle name collisions?
If user clicks on an .p5i file and the name specified is already in use
on the users system, what do we do, follow the BE approach and add a
numeric to the end of it? Will the API resolve this when it does the
authority/0 query against the depot server?
There are two different cases here:
1) update of existing authority
- as discussed previously, if an existing authority is found to have the
same origin_url as that in the .p5i file, it assumed to be the same
authority and some of its information will be updated with the
information from the .p5i file (such as the list of origin_urls,
mirror_urls, etc.)
2) addition of new authority
- if the origin_url in the .p5i file doesn't match any existing
authority, but the name conflicts, the gui will handle this inherently
since it always prompts the user to add/update the repository while the
cli will simply fail letting the user know why it can't proceed
An origin_url is required in the .p5i file format and in the output of
authority/0 so this should be reasonable.
We intend to present an Add New Repo dialog to the user which will have
the Name field filled in but editable, to allow them to change the name
in such a case. Are we saying the user should not be able to change the
name?
Yes, they should not be able to change the name. Refer to Stephen's
original email on the proposed authority/0 operation [1].
--
Shawn Walker
[1] http://markmail.org/message/agnoxwelmj7mvrwr
_______________________________________________
pkg-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
