On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 05:13:40PM -0800, Danek Duvall wrote: > [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.
Mostly I'm suggesting the former. A comment with a dire warning would be sufficient. I wondered if you could assert that a package plan's actions have not changed during this step, but if there's no easy way to do this then I wouldn't worry about it. -j _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
