Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Proposal: gaze newer last_update

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Andrew <afrayedknot AT thefrayedknot.armory.com>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Proposal: gaze newer last_update
  • Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:50:39 -0800

On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 01:25:23PM -0800, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 08:48:52PM +0100, Arwed von Merkatz wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 10:52:15AM -0800, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 01:59:49PM -0800, Andrew wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 11:29:32AM -0800, Seth Alan Woolley wrote:
> > > > > If you're going to do work on this, I think that we should make a
> > > > > distinction between last compile and last update.
> > > > >
> > > > > With afrayedknot's new tablet support we can know the difference
> > > > > now and
> > > > > head -n 1 the tablet history entry to get a real newer date.
> > > > Well, theres no history per-se in the tablet, however things are
> > > > stored
> > > > based on the time their installation completed. So you could easily
> > > > compare that timestamp with whenever the last system-update occurred.
> > >
> > > I think I need to clarify:
> > >
> > > spell imaginary-spell is added with version 1 in the distant past
> > >
> > > spell imaginary-spell is updated with a security patch on day 1 to devel
> > >
> > > on day 7 test grimoire is re-downloaded on computer-foo.
> > >
> > > on day 7 imaginary-spell is recompiled via a sorcery rebuild
> > > (or maybe an update from version 0)
> > >
> > > spell imaginary-spell is updated on day 14 to test with security patch
> > >
> > > ***problem cause*** The UPDATED value is listed as "day 1"
> > >
> > > on day 20, computer-foo is updated.
> > >
> > > with UPDATED listed as day 1 on imaginary-spell and compile date is
> > > listed
> > > as day 7, imaginary-spell's security update is not triggered for
> > > recompile
> > >
> > > I'm just hoping for some way to avoid that. This also happens when
> > > scribe update is run a time significantly before an update, not just
> > > when we have lagged updates to the grimoire.
> >
> > Didn't you think about a PATCHLEVEL variable some time ago that was used
> > for updates instead of the date based UPDATED? I think that would solve
> > this problem easily.
>
> Yeah, I did. I also thought there might be a solution that didn't
> require any additional guru overheard, but the patchlevel variable might
> be what we should use, instead.
>
> Are we prepared to support PATCHLEVEL instead of UPDATED? IF we use
> PATCHLEVEL, UPDATED (or a new PATCHRECOMPILE variable) should probably be
> changed to match the patchlevel that is a suggested recompile instead of
> being the date.
>
> patchlevel 1 - new features to spell but not a change in compile
> patchlevel 2 patchrecompile 2 - should recompile
> patchlevel 3 patchrecompile still 2 - should recompile only if
> patchlevel was less than 2
>
> We should have an implied default patchlevel of 0 so the variable(s)
> is(are)n't needed.
>

Couldnt we just record the value of UPDATED somewhere (like in the
tablet) when a spell is cast then we'd just compare the new value of
UPDATED with the last one instead of comparing it with the date installed
(which i agree is wrong, and shouldnt have been that way)

This will solve your problem without this complicated patchlevel scheme.

-Andrew

--
__________________________________________________________________________
|Andrew D. Stitt | astitt at sourcemage.org |
|irc: afrayedknot | afrayedknot at t.armory.com |
|aim: thefrayedknot or iteratorplusplus | acedit at armory.com |
|Sorcery Team Lead | ftp://t.armory.com/ |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Attachment: pgpvSmRCgPfMG.pgp
Description: PGP signature




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page