GLEP 25: Distfile Patching Support
|Author||Brian Harring <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
|Posting history||2004-04-04, 2004-11-11|
- Binary patches vs GNUDiff patches
- Backwards Compatibility
- Reference Implementation
The intention of this GLEP is to propose the creation of patching support for Portage, and iron out the implementation details.
Reduce the bandwidth load placed on our mirrors by decreasing the amount of bytes transferred when upgrading between versions. Side benefit of this is to significantly decrease the download requirements for users lacking broadband.
Most people are familiar with diff patches (unified diff for example)- this glep is specifically proposing the use of an actual binary differencer. The reason for this is that diff patches are line based- you change a single character in a line, and the whole line must be included in the patch. Binary differencers work at the byte level- it encodes just that byte. In that respect binary patches are often much more efficient then diff patches.
Further, the ability to reverse a unified patch is due to the fact the diff includes both the original line, and the modified line. The author isn't aware of any binary differencer that is able to create patches the can be reversed- basically they're unidirectional, the patch that is generated can only be used to upgrade or downgrade the version, not both. The plus side of this limitation is a significantly decreased patch size.
The choice of binary patches over diff patches pretty much comes down to the fact they're smaller- example being a kdelibs binary patch for 3.1.4->3.1.5 is 75kb, the equivalent diff patch is 123kb, and is unable to result in a correct md5 .
Currently, this glep is proposing only the usage of binary patches- that's not to say (with a fair amount of work) it couldn't be extended to support standard diffs.
The difference between source releases typically isn't very large, especially for minor releases. As an example, kdelibs-3.1.4.tar.bz2 is 10.53 MB, and kdelibs-3.1.5.tar.bz2 is 10.54 MB. A bzip2'ed patch between those versions is 75.6 kb , less then 1% the size of 3.1.5's tbz2.
Quite a few sections of gentoo are affected- mirroring, the portage tree, and portage itself.
For adding patch info into the tree, this glep proposes a global patch list (stored in profiles as patches.global), and individual patch lists stored in relevant package directories (named patches). Using the kernel packages as an example, a global list of patches enables us to create a patch once, add an entry, and have all kernel packages benefit from that single entry. Both patches.global, and individual package patch files share the same format:
MD5 md5-value patch-url size MD5 md5-value ref-file size UMD5 md5-value new-file size
For those familiar with digest file layout, this should look familiar. Essentially, chksum type, value, filename, size. The UMD5 chksum type is just the uncompressed md5/size of the file- so if the UMD5 were for a bzip2 compressed file, it would be the md5 value/size of the uncompressed file. And an example:
MD5 ccd5411b3558326cbce0306fcae32e26 http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/patches/kdelibs-3.1.4-3.1.5.patch.bz2 75687 MD5 82c265de78d53c7060a09c5cb1a78942 kdelibs-3.1.4.tar.bz2 10537433 UMD5 0b1908a51e739c07ff5a88e189d2f7a9 kdelibs-3.1.5.tar.bz2 48056320
In the above example, the md5sum of http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/patches/kdelibs-3.1.4-3.1.5.patch.bz2 is calculated, compared to the stored value, and then the file size is checked. The one difference is the UMD5 checksum type- the md5 value and the size are specific to the uncompressed file. Continuing, for cases where the patch will reside on one of our mirrors, the patch filename would be sufficient.
Finally, note that this is a unidirectional patch- using the above example, kdelibs-3.1.4-3.1.5 can only be used to upgrade from 3.1.4 to 3.1.5, not in reverse (originally explained in Binary patches vs GNUDiff patches).
This glep proposes the patching support should be (at this stage) optional- specifically, enabled via FEATURES="patching".
When patching is enabled, the global patch list is read, and the packages patch list is read. From there, portage determines what files could be used as a base for patching to the desired file- further, determining if it's actually worth patching (case where it wouldn't be is when the target file is less then the sum of the patches needed). Any patches to be used are fetched, and md5 verified.
Upon fetching and md5 verification of patch(es), the desired file is reconstructed. Assuming reconstruction didn't return any errors, the target file has its uncompressed md5sum calculated and verified, then is recompressed and the compressed md5sum calculated. At this point, if the compressed md5 matches the md5 stored in the tree, then portage transfers the file into distfiles, and continues on its merry way.
If the compressed md5 is different from the tree's value, then the (proposed) md5 database is updated with new compressed md5. Details of this database (and the issue it addresses) follow.
There will be instances where a file is reconstructed perfectly, recompressed, and the recompressed md5sum differs from what is stored in the tree- the problem is that the md5sum of a compressed file is inherently tied to the compressor version/options used to compress the original source.
A good example of this problem is related to bzip2 versions used for compression. Between bzip2 0.9x and bzip2 1.x, there was a subtle change in the compressor resulting in a slightly better compression result- end result being a different file, eg a different md5sum. Assuming compressor versions are the same, there also is the issue of what compression level the target source was originally compressed at- was it compressed with -9, -8 or -7? That's just a sampling of the various original settings that must be accounted for, and that's limited to gzip/bzip2; other compressors will add to the number of variables to be accounted for to produce an exact recreation of the compressed md5sum.
Tracking the compressor version and options originally used isn't really a valid option- assuming all options were accounted for, clients would still be required to have multiple versions of the same compressor installed just for the sake of recreating a compressed md5sum even though the uncompressed source's md5 has already been verified.
The creation of a clientside flatfile/db of valid alternate md5/size pairs would enable portage to handle perfectly reconstructed files, that have a different md5sum due to compression differences. The proposed format is thus:
MD5 md5sum orig-file size MD5 md5sum [ optional new-name ] size
MD5 984146931906a7d53300b29f58f6a899 OOo_1.0.3_source.tar.bz2 165475319 MD5 0733dd85ed44d88d1eabed704d579721 165444187
An alternate md5/size pair for a file would be added only when the uncompressed source's md5/size has been verified, yet upon recompression the md5 differs. For cleansing of older md5/size pairs from this db, a utility would be required- the author suggests the addition of a distfiles-cleaning utility to portage, with the ability to also cleanse old md5/size pairs when the file the pair was created for no longer exists in distfiles.
Where to store the database is debatable- /etc/portage or /var/cache/edb are definite options.
The reasoning for allowing for an optional new-name is that it provides needed functionality should anyone attempt to extend portage to allow for clients to change the compression used for a source (eg, recompress all gzip files as bzip2). Granted, no such code or attempt has been made, but nothing is lost by leaving the option open should the request/attempt be made.
A potential gotcha of adding this support is that in environments where the distfiles directory is shared out to multiple systems, this db must be shared also.
One issue of contention is where these files will actually be stored. As of the writing of this glep, a full distfiles mirror is roughly around 40 gb- a rough estimate by the author places the space requirements for patches for each version at a total of around 4gb. Note this isn't even remotely a hard figure yet, and a better figure is being checked into currently.
Regardless of the exact space figure, finding a place to store the patches will be problematic. Expansion of the required mirror space (essentially just swallowing the patches storage requirement) is unlikely, since it was one of the main arguments against the now defunct glep9 attempt . A couple of ideas that have been put forth to handle the additional space requirements are as follows-
1) Identification of mirrors willing to handle the extra space requirements- essentially create an additional patch mirror tier.
2) Mirroring only a patch for certain package versions, rather then full source. Using kdelibs-3.1.5 as an example, only the patch would be mirrored (rather then the full 10.53 MB source). Downside to this approach is that a user who is downloading kdelibs for the first time would either need to pull it from the original SRC_URI (placing the burden onto the upstream mirror), or pull the 3.1.4 version, and the patch- pulling 63k more then if they had just pulled the full version. The kdelibs 3.1.4/3.1.5 example is something of an optimal case- not all versions will have such miniscule patches.
3) A variation on the idea above, essentially mirroring only the patch for the oldest version(s) of a package; eg, kdelibs currently has version 3.05, 3.1.5, 3.2.0, and 3.2.1- the mirrors would only carry a patch for 3.05, not full source (think RESTRICT="fetch"). One plus to this is that patches to downgrade in version are smaller then the patches to upgrade in version- there are exceptions to this, but they're hard to find. A major downside to this approach is A) a user would have to sync up to get the patchlists for that version, B) creation of a set of patches to go backwards in version (see Binary patches vs GNUDiff patches)..
Of the options listed above, the first is the easiest, although the second could be made to work. Feedback and any possible alternatives would be greatly appreciated.
Maintenance of patch lists, and the actual patch creation ought to be managed by a high level script- essentally a dev says "I want a patch between this version, and that version: make it so", the script churns away creating/updating the patch list, and generating the patch locally. The utility next uploads the new patch to /space/distfiles-local on dev.gentoo.org (exempting if it's not a locally generated patch), and repoman is used to commit the updated patch list.
What would be preferable (although possibly wishful thinking), is if hardware could be co-opted for automatic patch generation, rather then forcing it upon the devs- something akin to how files are pulled onto the mirror automatically for new ebuilds.
The initial bulk of patches to get will be generated by the author, to ease the transition and offer patches for people to test out.
As noted in The Proposed Solution, a system using patching and sharing out it's distfiles must share out it's alternate md5 db. Any system that uses the distfiles share must support the alternate md5 db also. If this is considered enough of an issue, it is conceivable to place reconstructed sources with an alternate md5 into a subdirectory of distdir- portage only looks within distdir, unwilling to descend into subdirectories.
Also note that Distfile Mirror Additions may add additional backwards compatibility issues, depending on what solution is accepted.
|||(1, 2) kdelibs-3.1.4-3.1.5.patch.bz2, switching format patch, created via diffball-0.4_pre4 (diffball is available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/diffball) Bzip2 -9 compressed, the patch is 75,687 bytes, uncompressed it is 337,649 bytes. The patch is available at http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/kdelibs-3.1.4-3.1.5.patch.bz2 for those curious.|
|||Glep9, 'Gentoo Package Update System' (https://www.gentoo.org/glep/glep-0009.html)|