On Sat, 2011-02-05 at 14:40 +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > Stanislav Maslovski <stanislav.maslov...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Feb 04, 2011 at 10:00:40AM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > >> On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Stanislav Maslovski > >> <stanislav.maslov...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > This is possible, however, it is an extra busy work for a user. In any > >> > case, I think that holding a lock only for downloading is an overkill > >> > and this can be relaxed. > >> > >> What if you would launch two download-only ops at the same time? > >> Isn't a lock needed in that case as well? > > > > That should a different lock. Currently, when _dowloading_ aptitude > > holds a lock that prevents _installing_. > > It also needs to hold apt and synaptic from downloading, at least from > downloading the same file. The dpkg lock is universally used so that > works (too well). A change to per file locks would need some carefull > coordination.
No, all of these tools use the APT libraries and locking is handled there. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
