On Wed, 2007-08-08 at 12:37 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 17:49 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 17:26 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > So, I commented a little on Colin's related patch... I'm leaning
towards
> > this approach, though.
>
> If using the system yum cache works, that makes a lot of sense to me.
The nice thing with allowing it to be specified is that you can either
end up with
a) unspecified does a private cache, just like now (this is an important
case to keep working, especially when doing multiple builds at a time
from a fast local source)
I don't quite understand this one - the cache is in the tempdir as far
as I can see; therefore it's not shared between builds?
b) you can specify the system cache if you're pointing at the
same repos
as your system. that can save you download time, etc if you do
keepcache=0 in your system yum.conf or do your system update after
creating a live image
(keepcache=1 I assume you mean) But is there the potential for things
to break if multiple yum processes write to it?
c) you can specify something like /var/tmp/livecd-cache if you want
to
have a livecd-specific cache.
I don't really want it to be livecd-specific. The goal is just to have
tools that by default do not repeatedly download huge files over the
internet. I have plenty of gigs of hard drive space. Mock drove me
absolutely nuts for this reason (yes, it has some magic --cache option
that's not the default, requires manual intervention to update, and was
broken anyways last I tried).
Hmm. Would anything break if we just pointed all the tools
at /var/cache/yum? Does yum delete all files it sees there if it has
keepcache=0? And what about the concurrency issue?