On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:10:13AM -0800, Shawn Walker wrote: > On 11/17/10 10:48 AM, Shawn Walker wrote: > >On 11/17/10 09:33 AM, Edward Pilatowicz wrote: > >>i'm confused as to why we're going to have both PKG_CACHEDIR and > >>PKG_CACHEROOT, and what the functional difference between the two is. > >>the comments are the same for both, but only PKG_CACHEDIR entries get > >>appended to __read_cache_dirs? > > > >PKG_CACHEDIR expects a flat cache directory as that was it's historical > >behaviour. > > > >PKG_CACHEROOT expects a tree cache directory that's structured like > >/var/pkg/publisher. > > > >The comments are not the same for both where it's used. I'm happy to add > >comments where it's declared if that's the issue at hand. > > > >And yes, if you'll look at the implementation, the PKG_CACHEROOT is not > >appended to read_cache_dirs directly because it's a not a global, flat > >cache structure. Instead, the get_cachedirs() method on the image uses > >the cache root to build a cache path for each publisher. > > I've updated the webrev (in place) with new comments in > modules/client/image.py to help clarify. >
thanks. this looks good to me. my only comment is that with this change, since zones will be using PKG_CACHEROOT, zones doesn't have any dependance on PKG_CACHEDIR. so if dropping PKG_CACHEDIR support would allow you to simplify things then from a zones perspective you should feel free to go ahead and do this. (but i'm guessing you're keeping it around for other reasons.) ed _______________________________________________ pkg-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-discuss
