[oe] [PATCH 1/3] Make package_update_index_ipk proper task with locking

[Richard Purdie]

On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 14:16 +0100, Phil Blundell wrote: 
> On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 14:05 +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> > Can I suggest we actually add the ability to lock from shell scripts? A
> > couple of python scripts (bitbake-lock/bitbake-unlock) which just call
> > the python locking functions should be trivial to write and then mean we
> > can add sane locking to specialist functions much more easily. It should
> > allow us to solve the opkg.conf file issue you were seeing easily too.
> > 
> > Adding those shell scripts is slightly trickt - I'm happy to have them
> > in bitbake but we'll need another release before OE.dev can depend on
> > use them. We're overdue a bitbake release so perhaps we can get this
> > done quite quickly though...
> 
> In this particular case there probably isn't any need for the locks to
> be shared between the shell and python worlds since all the ipk handling
> is done in shell.  So I guess it should be fine to just have the shell
> code call something like flock(2) directly, and hence no need for a new
> bitbake release.
> 
> If the issue is just that concurrent calls to ipkg-make-index will
> collide, it's probably as simple as replacing the call to
> ipkg-make-index with "flock some-path -c ipkg-make-index ...".

Agreed, it just somehow seemed nicer to use the same locking functions
for both and its very simple to make it happen at a code level, just the
logistics are tricky.

I probably will add locking scripts to bitbake in case we do want it but
there are other ways simpler ways to solve this particular problem.

Cheers,

Richard