On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 05:43:48PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:12:11PM -0600, Shawn Walker wrote: > >>Greetings, > >> > >>The following webrev contains fixes and changes for the following issues: > >> > >> 12130 install/update operations should always refresh publisher > >>metadata (when allowed) > >> 4419 misleading error message when pkg not found because refresh failed > >> 10976 operations should report when refresh failed if appropriate > >> > >>Overview > >>======== > >>Since the catalog v1 work has been putback, the actual check for new > >>publisher catalog data is relatively cheap now (this was not > >>previously the case). For example, on my system, it takes ~1s real > >>for the api to check three publisher repositories for new catalog > >>data. Previously, this could have taken several seconds. > >> > >>As a result, and in light of the continuing confusion when packages > >>don't seem "immediately available" after publication, the added cost > >>here was deemed a worthy tradeoff in favour of attempting to > >>eliminate user confusion for install and update operations. > >> > >>Please note that pkg 'info' 'contents' and 'list' remain unchanged > >>as performance of these operations has been a consistent concern > >>based on user feedback. > >> > >>webrev > >>====== > >>http://cr.opensolaris.org/~swalker/pkg-12130/ > > > >The code changes look fine to me, but I'm not sure this is really the > >right way to go. I had thought we explictly put a refresh interval into > >the publisher/0 information. My understanding was that publishers that > >expected to publish new content frequently could set this to a low > >number (like 30 seconds or 5 minutes) and that we would implicitly > >refresh then. > > > >Is is really a good idea to always refresh, even when some repositories > >will often go a long time without updates. (p.o.o/release, would be a > >good example.) > > Even when that functionality is in place, current user feedback has > indicated that every time an image-update occurs (at the very least) > it is expected to use the most current software available. > > The alternative would be to limit this change to image-update only, > and then hope that the future publisher metadata changes to allow > the publisher to control refresh intervals would be sufficient. > > I had previously asked if it was instead acceptable to simply tell > the user when we last updated the catalog for each publisher, but > the consensus seemed to be that was not the right path.
I didn't realize that the clients don't currently pay attention to the depot's refresh interval. Knowing that, I think the approach you've taken in this change makes a lot more sense. Sorry for my confusion. -j _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
