On Sat, 2013-12-28 at 08:05 -0800, W. Trevor King wrote: > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 06:54:28AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Saturday 28 December 2013 01:11:08 Brian Dolbec wrote: > > > I don't know if catalyst can do that or not and whether it can > > > detect it to run perl-cleaner. > > > > catalyst certainly could grow code for handling perl-cleaner & > > friends. > > This sounds like a job for Portage and @preserved-rebuild ;). It has > already absorbed revdep-rebuild. Hopefully absorbing perl-cleaner, > python-updater, and similar is just a matter of time :p. > > Cheers, > Trevor >
No, it didn't absorb revdep-rebuild. It just does early (live) detection. Actually, with the new python version of revdep-rebuild, there was talk of it absorbing python-updater and perl-cleaner (also coded in python) as part of it's normal revdep call. Then it would be a one stop call. Actually, I think in this case. the original error would have been avoided if the user had used the same snapshot for all stages of the build. stage1 through livecd-*. I believe he/she just grabbed a stage3 and a current tree snapshot. We could however change catalyst to accept a stage3 and perform an update, perl-cleaner, python-updater, revdep-rebuild,... before commencing with the build process, but I feel that is a step better done by hand. It would also need to wait for catalyst to move to using emerge/portage through the api. From there it could get the list of atoms to be updated and handle any calls on an as needed basis to perl-cleaner, etc.. That would also require me to complete the public_api work I was doing for portage.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
