On 01/26/2018 06:24 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > The alternate option of using file hash has the advantage of having > a more balanced split. Furthermore, since hashes are stored > in Manifests using them is zero-cost. However, this solution has two > significant disadvantages: > > 1. The hash values are unknown for newly-downloaded distfiles, so > ``repoman`` (or an equivalent tool) would have to use a temporary > directory before locating the file in appropriate subdirectory. > > 2. User-provided distfiles (e.g. for fetch-restricted packages) with > hash mismatches would be placed in the wrong subdirectory, > potentially causing confusing errors. >
The filename proposal sounds fine, so this is only academic, but: are these two points really disadvantages? What are we worried about in using a temporary directory? Copying across filesystem boundaries? Except in rare cases, $DISTDIR itself will be usable a temporary location (on the same filesystem), won't it? For the second point, portage is going to tell me where to put the file, isn't it? Then no matter what garbage I download, won't portage look for it in the right place, because where-to-put-it is determined using the same manifest hash that determines where-to-find-it?
