[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: does aptitude really need to lock the status database when downloading?



On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 14:40 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Stanislav Maslovski <stanislav.maslovski@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:00:40AM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski
> >> <stanislav.maslovski@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > This is possible, however, it is an extra busy work for a user. In any
> >> > case, I think that holding a lock only for downloading is an overkill
> >> > and this can be relaxed.
> >> 
> >> What if you would launch two download-only ops at the same time?
> >> Isn't a lock needed in that case as well?
> >
> > That should a different lock. Currently, when _dowloading_ aptitude
> > holds a lock that prevents _installing_. 
> 
> It also needs to hold apt and synaptic from downloading, at least from
> downloading the same file. The dpkg lock is universally used so that
> works (too well). A change to per file locks would need some carefull
> coordination.

No, all of these tools use the APT libraries and locking is handled
there.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: