Problem with packagesource::sites in setup

Problem with packagesource::sites in setup

[Ken Brown]

I think we're currently mishandling packagesource::sites when several 
libsolv repos contain the same version of a package.  If I'm not 
mistaken, we create a new packageversion pv for each repo, and 
pv.source()->sites contains a single site, corresponding to that repo.

So we never take advantage of the fact that we have more than one mirror 
(or mirror directory) from which we can potentially obtain an archive 
for the package.

I think the way to fix this is to consolidate all the packageversions pv 
into a single one, which knows about all the sites.

This could be handled by packagemeta::add_version().  When it replaces 
an existing version, it could remove the old one from the pool after 
copying the sites information.  In order to obtain the sites 
information, it would have to be able to query the libsolv pool, so we 
would have to internalize repo data as we go along, presumably in the 
IniDBBuilderPackage destructor.

Does this sound about right?  If so, I'll try to prepare a patch.  Or 
maybe there's a better/easier way to solve the problem.

Ken

Re: Problem with packagesource::sites in setup

[Jon Turney]

On 15/03/2018 21:23, Ken Brown wrote:
> I think we're currently mishandling packagesource::sites when several 
> libsolv repos contain the same version of a package.  If I'm not 
> mistaken, we create a new packageversion pv for each repo, and 
> pv.source()->sites contains a single site, corresponding to that repo.
> 
> So we never take advantage of the fact that we have more than one mirror 
> (or mirror directory) from which we can potentially obtain an archive 
> for the package.

Hmm... I think this is going to interact with the package repositories 
release: label.  If they are both "cygwin", then one will overwrite the 
other.  If they are different, then we'll have 2 separate libsolv repos.

In the first case, I'm not sure that having the same package available 
from more than one package repository mirror was ever was doing anything 
terribly useful (i.e. it doesn't make the download any faster, or more 
reliable)

But, yeah, what we are doing currently is probably wrong.

In the second case, it's possible for the length/hash of the "same" 
version to be different, so it's not clear in what sense they really are 
the same, and I think it's random which one we're going to get 
(silently), which is unhelpful at best...

> I think the way to fix this is to consolidate all the packageversions pv 
> into a single one, which knows about all the sites.
> 
> This could be handled by packagemeta::add_version().  When it replaces 
> an existing version, it could remove the old one from the pool after 
> copying the sites information.  In order to obtain the sites 
> information, it would have to be able to query the libsolv pool, so we 
> would have to internalize repo data as we go along, presumably in the 
> IniDBBuilderPackage destructor.
> 
> Does this sound about right?  If so, I'll try to prepare a patch.  Or 
> maybe there's a better/easier way to solve the problem.

Re: Problem with packagesource::sites in setup

[Ken Brown]

On 3/15/2018 6:07 PM, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 15/03/2018 21:23, Ken Brown wrote:
>> I think we're currently mishandling packagesource::sites when several 
>> libsolv repos contain the same version of a package.  If I'm not 
>> mistaken, we create a new packageversion pv for each repo, and 
>> pv.source()->sites contains a single site, corresponding to that repo.
>>
>> So we never take advantage of the fact that we have more than one 
>> mirror (or mirror directory) from which we can potentially obtain an 
>> archive for the package.
> 
> Hmm... I think this is going to interact with the package repositories 
> release: label.  If they are both "cygwin", then one will overwrite the 
> other.

I hadn't thought of that.  But will one really overwrite the other or 
will we just get several copies of the same package and version in the 
"cygwin" repo, each with its own site?

>  If they are different, then we'll have 2 separate libsolv repos.

> In the first case, I'm not sure that having the same package available 
> from more than one package repository mirror was ever was doing anything 
> terribly useful (i.e. it doesn't make the download any faster, or more 
> reliable)

No, but it can help if one mirror is having transient network problems. 
For example, we might get a corrupt archive from one mirror, and then 
the loop in download.cc:download_one() will try the next one.  I have no 
idea how many users use more than one mirror with the expectation that 
this will happen.  Probably not many.

> But, yeah, what we are doing currently is probably wrong.

And I'm less convinced now that it's worth worrying about.  But if we 
decide not to fix it, we should probably simplify and clarify the code 
by saving just one site in a packagesource object instead of a vector 
that always has a single element in it.

> In the second case, it's possible for the length/hash of the "same" 
> version to be different, so it's not clear in what sense they really are 
> the same, and I think it's random which one we're going to get 
> (silently), which is unhelpful at best...
> 
>> I think the way to fix this is to consolidate all the packageversions 
>> pv into a single one, which knows about all the sites.
>>
>> This could be handled by packagemeta::add_version().  When it replaces 
>> an existing version, it could remove the old one from the pool after 
>> copying the sites information.  In order to obtain the sites 
>> information, it would have to be able to query the libsolv pool, so we 
>> would have to internalize repo data as we go along, presumably in the 
>> IniDBBuilderPackage destructor.
>>
>> Does this sound about right?  If so, I'll try to prepare a patch.  Or 
>> maybe there's a better/easier way to solve the problem.
> 

Re: Problem with packagesource::sites in setup

[Ken Brown]

On 3/15/2018 10:42 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 3/15/2018 6:07 PM, Jon Turney wrote:
>> On 15/03/2018 21:23, Ken Brown wrote:
>>> I think we're currently mishandling packagesource::sites when several 
>>> libsolv repos contain the same version of a package.  If I'm not 
>>> mistaken, we create a new packageversion pv for each repo, and 
>>> pv.source()->sites contains a single site, corresponding to that repo.
>>>
>>> So we never take advantage of the fact that we have more than one 
>>> mirror (or mirror directory) from which we can potentially obtain an 
>>> archive for the package.
>>
>> Hmm... I think this is going to interact with the package repositories 
>> release: label.  If they are both "cygwin", then one will overwrite 
>> the other.
> 
> I hadn't thought of that.  But will one really overwrite the other or 
> will we just get several copies of the same package and version in the 
> "cygwin" repo, each with its own site?
> 
>>   If they are different, then we'll have 2 separate libsolv repos.
> 
>> In the first case, I'm not sure that having the same package available 
>> from more than one package repository mirror was ever was doing 
>> anything terribly useful (i.e. it doesn't make the download any 
>> faster, or more reliable)
> 
> No, but it can help if one mirror is having transient network problems. 
> For example, we might get a corrupt archive from one mirror, and then 
> the loop in download.cc:download_one() will try the next one.  I have no 
> idea how many users use more than one mirror with the expectation that 
> this will happen.  Probably not many.
> 
>> But, yeah, what we are doing currently is probably wrong.
> 
> And I'm less convinced now that it's worth worrying about.

I just realized that this affects local installs also.  Here it's not 
unusual for a user to have several mirror directories from different 
setup runs.  But if two different setup.ini files list a given 
packageversion, setup will offer it for install only if the archive is 
found in the directory corresponding to the last setup.ini read.

So I do think this should be fixed.

Ken

Re: Problem with packagesource::sites in setup

[Ken Brown]

On 3/16/2018 7:44 AM, Ken Brown wrote:
> On 3/15/2018 10:42 PM, Ken Brown wrote:
>> On 3/15/2018 6:07 PM, Jon Turney wrote:
>>> On 15/03/2018 21:23, Ken Brown wrote:
>>>> I think we're currently mishandling packagesource::sites when 
>>>> several libsolv repos contain the same version of a package.  If I'm 
>>>> not mistaken, we create a new packageversion pv for each repo, and 
>>>> pv.source()->sites contains a single site, corresponding to that repo.
>>>>
>>>> So we never take advantage of the fact that we have more than one 
>>>> mirror (or mirror directory) from which we can potentially obtain an 
>>>> archive for the package.
>>>
>>> Hmm... I think this is going to interact with the package 
>>> repositories release: label.  If they are both "cygwin", then one 
>>> will overwrite the other.
>>
>> I hadn't thought of that.  But will one really overwrite the other or 
>> will we just get several copies of the same package and version in the 
>> "cygwin" repo, each with its own site?
>>
>>>   If they are different, then we'll have 2 separate libsolv repos.
>>
>>> In the first case, I'm not sure that having the same package 
>>> available from more than one package repository mirror was ever was 
>>> doing anything terribly useful (i.e. it doesn't make the download any 
>>> faster, or more reliable)
>>
>> No, but it can help if one mirror is having transient network 
>> problems. For example, we might get a corrupt archive from one mirror, 
>> and then the loop in download.cc:download_one() will try the next 
>> one.  I have no idea how many users use more than one mirror with the 
>> expectation that this will happen.  Probably not many.
>>
>>> But, yeah, what we are doing currently is probably wrong.
>>
>> And I'm less convinced now that it's worth worrying about.
> 
> I just realized that this affects local installs also.  Here it's not 
> unusual for a user to have several mirror directories from different 
> setup runs.  But if two different setup.ini files list a given 
> packageversion, setup will offer it for install only if the archive is 
> found in the directory corresponding to the last setup.ini read.
> 
> So I do think this should be fixed.

A patchset is on its way.

Ken

Re: Problem with packagesource::sites in setup

[Achim Gratz]

Ken Brown writes:
> I think we're currently mishandling packagesource::sites when several
> libsolv repos contain the same version of a package.  If I'm not
> mistaken, we create a new packageversion pv for each repo, and
> pv.source()->sites contains a single site, corresponding to that repo.

That should normally not happen, I'm not sure what libsolv does in this
case in the absence of repo priorities (which would provide an ordering
among otherwise identical versions).

> So we never take advantage of the fact that we have more than one
> mirror (or mirror directory) from which we can potentially obtain an
> archive for the package.

That sort of thing is supposed to be handled at another level in the
distros using libsolv based installers (i.e. mirrorbrain).  WHile I
agree that this would be sensible behaviour for us, I don't know how
much we'd be relying on accidental behaviour.


Regards,
Achim.
-- 
+<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+

SD adaptations for KORG EX-800 and Poly-800MkII V0.9:
http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#KorgSDada