Problem with packagesource::sites in setup

[Ken Brown]

On 3/15/2018 6:07 PM, Jon Turney wrote:
> On 15/03/2018 21:23, Ken Brown wrote:
>> I think we're currently mishandling packagesource::sites when several 
>> libsolv repos contain the same version of a package.  If I'm not 
>> mistaken, we create a new packageversion pv for each repo, and 
>> pv.source()->sites contains a single site, corresponding to that repo.
>>
>> So we never take advantage of the fact that we have more than one 
>> mirror (or mirror directory) from which we can potentially obtain an 
>> archive for the package.
> 
> Hmm... I think this is going to interact with the package repositories 
> release: label.  If they are both "cygwin", then one will overwrite the 
> other.

I hadn't thought of that.  But will one really overwrite the other or 
will we just get several copies of the same package and version in the 
"cygwin" repo, each with its own site?

>Â  If they are different, then we'll have 2 separate libsolv repos.

> In the first case, I'm not sure that having the same package available 
> from more than one package repository mirror was ever was doing anything 
> terribly useful (i.e. it doesn't make the download any faster, or more 
> reliable)

No, but it can help if one mirror is having transient network problems. 
For example, we might get a corrupt archive from one mirror, and then 
the loop in download.cc:download_one() will try the next one.  I have no 
idea how many users use more than one mirror with the expectation that 
this will happen.  Probably not many.

> But, yeah, what we are doing currently is probably wrong.

And I'm less convinced now that it's worth worrying about.  But if we 
decide not to fix it, we should probably simplify and clarify the code 
by saving just one site in a packagesource object instead of a vector 
that always has a single element in it.

> In the second case, it's possible for the length/hash of the "same" 
> version to be different, so it's not clear in what sense they really are 
> the same, and I think it's random which one we're going to get 
> (silently), which is unhelpful at best...
> 
>> I think the way to fix this is to consolidate all the packageversions 
>> pv into a single one, which knows about all the sites.
>>
>> This could be handled by packagemeta::add_version().  When it replaces 
>> an existing version, it could remove the old one from the pool after 
>> copying the sites information.  In order to obtain the sites 
>> information, it would have to be able to query the libsolv pool, so we 
>> would have to internalize repo data as we go along, presumably in the 
>> IniDBBuilderPackage destructor.
>>
>> Does this sound about right?  If so, I'll try to prepare a patch.  Or 
>> maybe there's a better/easier way to solve the problem.
>