Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Corrupt pristine tree

[John Meacham]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 05:27:39PM -0500, Miles Bader wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 02:10:35PM -0800, John Meacham wrote:
> > Why not use a cryptographic hash? that seems like a much nicer way to
> > verify the integrity of the pristine trees and doesn't suffer from the
> > device/inode issues that people have with any slightly unusual setup.
> 
> 'cause it's butt-achingly slow.

not nearly as slow as rebuilding ++pristine-trees every time :). 

What about as a fallback: if the inode doesn't match, try md5sums, if
those match, update the inode/device entry, if they don't then complain
about corruption.  

If nothing else, it would cut down on mailing list traffic from people
with interesting setups where inode/device numbers are not preserved.
For some of us, changing our setup is not a viable option and we are
willing to take a performance hit for correctness (and the ability to
continue using arch as a front-line development tool without hassle).

        John

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Meacham - California Institute of Technology, Alum. - address@hidden
---------------------------------------------------------------------------