Shawn Walker wrote: > On 11/ 6/10 06:23 PM, Danek Duvall wrote: > >Shawn Walker wrote: > > > >> http://cr.opensolaris.org/~swalker/pkg-iformat/ > > > >image.py: > > > > - line 487: Can you explain why this is safe? > > Because configuration classes provide a set of declarations that > define what each version of the image configuration looks like, and > enforce that view of the configuration on load.
I'm not sure how you could enforce a version 3 reading of a version 7 configuration. If you try to load an image whose config file is version 7, will creating the ImageConfig object fail? > > - line 632: Can you explain why this is safe? > > Based on the structure, I have no reason to believe otherwise. I guess this is the same as the previous question, then -- what happens if version 7 has a cache directory, and so you assume that it's version 3 instead? > > - line 638: this can move out one level > > I need it to reload in both cases. Otherwise, I'm not understanding. I was thinking this could move after line 652, but then it would happen for the "if purge" case, which isn't right; I'm not sure if I was thinking something else, or if I just missed that. > > - line 697: If self.version< 4 and self.__user_cache_dir, then > > __write_cache_dir doesn't end up getting set. Ditto with > > _incoming_cache_dir. Is that a problem? > > I've reworked this again because I'm not sure what was intended either. > It seemed so clear at the time :/ It always does. :) > > - line 1036: should we handle EXDEV specially? > > I wasn't aware we were going to support random splits of /var/pkg into > separate filesystems. And in particular, it seems odd that /var/pkg > would be a separate filesystem. I could see /var/pkg as a separate filesystem, though splitting it further would seem odd to me. I don't mind leaving it as is, until there's demand. > > - line 3038: Should we warn the user that what they're doing is not > > necessarily representative of the command that would actually get run? > > I don't know. If so, what do you want the message to be? Something along the lines of "A newer version of pkg(5) might be required, but insufficient permissions prevented pkg(5) from discovering this; any subsequent output may not be representative of the command that would actually perform the requested operation." Dunno if it's worth it. Danek _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
