From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Danny Milosavljevic Subject: bug#35683: wishlist: addessing statefulness of .cache(s) Date: Sun, 12 May 2019 11:32:42 +0200 Message-ID: <20190512113242.583f9229@scratchpost.org> References: <878svdh2ec.fsf@roquette.mug.biscuolo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/_Yh/JoqGgNK3UYGNi2xXgyF"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:45813) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPkxJ-0004xE-1e for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 05:39:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPkqs-0002zk-Hq for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 05:33:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:56480) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hPkqs-0002zf-EY for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 05:33:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hPkqs-000151-9J for bug-guix@gnu.org; Sun, 12 May 2019 05:33:02 -0400 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <878svdh2ec.fsf@roquette.mug.biscuolo.net> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: Giovanni Biscuolo Cc: 35683@debbugs.gnu.org --Sig_/_Yh/JoqGgNK3UYGNi2xXgyF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > What should we do about this? For gdm I think it would make sense to > add an activation service extension that clears the gdm user=E2=80=99s ho= me > directory. And more generally, maybe we should offer a generic cache > cleaner service. I don't like that workaround much. I mean for the time being I guess it's OK, but let's file bug reports upstream so they are aware of the problem. Better would be if the cache directory contained a "cache-protocol-version" file or something and make the client program heed it and make it clear the cache if it's the wrong version, without any Guix special case (the problem is not not Guix-specific anyway). It's not exactly difficult. Most of the time the bug reports just don't get filed--and cache invalidation is always an afterthought when=20 implementing a cache (sadly). If they say no we can still keep the workaround. --Sig_/_Yh/JoqGgNK3UYGNi2xXgyF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEds7GsXJ0tGXALbPZ5xo1VCwwuqUFAlzX6DoACgkQ5xo1VCww uqXB6ggAjLdkLT4kE6S9kmGZxGwycdzccd2j9OVoZU8JfqA/0iPHDEQeGKzR+Mt2 B9H8Yif5FAX8NAMdVXAlrVarE13K6FPMgzhxhTivPEilWlgfEoMHUbDlpcQCDAzJ ZSuENiOX7oDOhCvj78dooSv5HqwdorssLlrHivWX1Cko+USKiTCDa323lxtBMF5m MQ1EJQUBlqUd5/93jZBY5Iu59wQF87af0lgltBxZg0J+LkQKGgqth5dzYoqqyWrH wm6HUwT5/utMZEunB8kUkF57YJB341V60aftRL8pL40pgYGFQpFlxhsaFD9Mcelb s0tObzJwmjccFFuFIa+ipncN46bIOQ== =nBAn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/_Yh/JoqGgNK3UYGNi2xXgyF--