[email protected] wrote: > In general this looks good. I have a meta-comment about the code in > imageplan around line 641. I'm assuming that the action order doesn't > have to be deterministic, but it just cannot change during the remainder > of the evaluate step. While this isn't a problem now, we might want to > observe that adding install actions, or changing the order of the actions > in the package plan after this point will lead to very confusing and hard > to debug results.
Very true. The code here has been pretty stable, so I'm not too worried about it, and it already has been the case that order mattered (with the original_name handling). On the other hand, with the solutions Bart's talking about to reduce the ginormous memory consumption seen with operations on redistributable, this may eventually become an issue. Are you suggesting I add a comment towards the top warning folks that maintaining order in the package plans is crucial to correct operations? Or are you suggesting that I should find a better way to handle the removals? I tried decorating the actions with the plans they belonged to, but that was a nightmare in terms of memory usage. I imagine that other object decoration methods would suffer similarly. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
