IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
Now that the internal reading methods operate on the mainloop, and we
know there can only be one write transaction at a time, it should be
safe to drop the internal mutexes (and multithreading).
Updates to the `OstreeSysroot` instance and DBus API all happen off
the mainloop now. The write transactions now use a separate
`OstreeSysroot` instance, and do not perform any changes to process
state on their own. We always reload state from disk.
I think this is a lot simpler to reason about from a correctness point
of view, at a likely negligble loss in performance for read
transactions.
Every transaction runs in a thread now, and there's no real drawback
to consistently creating a main context to go with it always. Most
of the transaction types now do a pull, which needs it.
Now that we have `ostree_sysroot_load_if_changed()`, we know more
precisely (and cheaply) when things change. Use inotify to detect
changes as before, but we don't need a timeout because all we do is
call `fstatat()` which is basically free; the inode is going to be in
memory.
This will hopefully help with
https://github.com/projectatomic/rpm-ostree/issues/220
but more investigation is needed.
Create and load a new OstreeSysroot and OstreeRepo instance as needed.
This ensures its internal state is up-to-date, since several ostree
commands can alter stored state without the daemon's knowledge.
I would prefer keeping persistent instances if these issues can be
addressed, as it would eliminate some inconvenient error handling.
But this way is safer for now.
If a client makes a request that is identical (that is, same method name
and same parameters) to an ongoing transaction, return the bus address of
that transaction. The client can then "tune in" to the progress messages.
(Remember the Transaction.Start() method returns a boolean to distinguish
a newly-started transaction from an ongoing transaction.)
The driving use case for this is a dropped ssh connection during a long
running transaction -- like "upgrade" -- and being able to reattach to
the transaction's progress messages mid-stream.
Few things to note:
- Cancelling a transaction no longer immediately destroys it.
- Transaction is destroyed when finished (or cancelled) and has
no client connections.
- If a client attaches to a finished transaction and calls Start(),
the transaction will re-emit the Finished signal to that client.
- The transaction bus address is not yet shared across multiple
clients, so multiple connections doesn't actually work from the
outside yet. It's just supported internally.
