Bug#207400: Notes
On Tue, Aug 26, 2003 at 11:40:23PM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> - IsCritical->IsImportant... The Critical/Important differentiation
> never seems to have panned out. The distinction was ment to allow a
> policy routine to manage things like suggests. If connectiva says
> removing it makes things much faster then might as well, but remove
> _all_ traces of IsImportant.
Further discussion seems to indicate that frontends like aptitude are using
this as intended, and so it should stay around.
> - algorithims.cc - This one is hard.
> RemoveDepends looks fine, assuming it's algorithm is correct (bet it is)
> Obsoleted fix to distUpgrade is harmless on debian since we never
> use Obsoletes. Though perhaps a function is needed here.
> Various changes to the resolver.. I know Gustavo/etc tested these
> and found them to fix problems. Even when I remembered everything
> it was beyond me to be sure they didn't cause problems in Debian.
> I fear this routine, it's impossible to test.
> I would put them in a debian release..
Every now and then, I've been hacking on some UML-based tools to perform
system simulation testing on Debian packages. One of these days, I'll
implement an apt regression suite with it. Until then, I don't think I'll
be touching this stuff.
> - depcache.cc
> - Faster checkdep. I didn't look too hard at this but it looks
> like it is functionally identical. No problems if it is
I built an apt which includes only this change, and was not able to detect
any measurable performance improvement with things like
CacheFile::CheckDeps, which calls this a few hundred thousand times on my
system.
> - mergelist.cc
> [...]
The stuff you listed here is all in pkgcachegen.cc, I think. mergelist.cc
is unchanged in the diff that I generated.
> - pkgrecords.cc - This fixes a segfault if you free things
> out of order, it's harmless.
Went ahead and committed this.
> So that should get you down to maybe a couple hundred lines of diff in the
> apt-pkg directory which is a good part of the battle to just _having_ RPM
> support.
Thanks!
--
- mdz
Reply to: