Locking fails when uploading without an architecture type about deb-s3

[jjshoe]

@alexmreis

[jjshoe]

And by simple, I mean, getting a list of all arch types, getting a lock on each, storing that an array, and looping to unlock.

[alexmreis]

I'd suggest the fix would actually be requiring the architecture to be explicitly specified if -l is used and exiting with an error if it isn't. Having multiple locks increases the complexity of something that is already fragile. That said if you consistently don't specify the architecture, then the behaviour of the locking mechanism is still consistent, albeit a bit dirty to the repo layout.

The eventual consistency for removal of the lock doesn't matter much, as it would only be potentially dangerous to actually go ahead and write things to the repository while someone else is also doing it. There is a built-in polling wait mechanism in -l that retries to acquire a lock for some time before giving up.

The -l option always checks for an existing lock first, and if and only if a lock is not found does it try to write a new lockfile, so a replace wouldn't ever occur. Read-after-write consistency is good enough for the purposes of at least adding packages. I strongly advise against deleting any without revoking permissions to the bucket to all other users first.

Could you please elaborate on the issue you have uncovered regarding the eventual consistency @jjshoe ?

[jjshoe]

@alexmreis I deleted the eventual consistency comment from here, I'll make a new issue when I come up with a great way to reproduce.

[jjshoe]

@alexmreis also, see #95.

[jjshoe]

@alexmreis - Actually, I have the nail in the coffin, and the safest possible way for you to do this anyway. You should lock at the bucket level. I know, then it's not as fast as it could be, but bucket-name/dists/stable/Release gets updated every run as well.

[jjshoe]

Also worth noting, specifying an architecture type out front makes it difficult to upload a whole mess of deb files of different arch types.

[alexmreis]

A bucket level lock breaks the idea of multiple repositories in the same bucket that the --prefix option allows for. It should at least be on the prefix level, but I do like the idea @jjshoe

[jjshoe]

@alexmreis yes, sorry, I'm all for prefix, replace bucket with repository.