W dniu wto, 30.01.2018 o godzinie 11∶07 -0800, użytkownik Zac Medico
napisał:
> On 01/30/2018 10:53 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Fix sync-rsync-verify-metamanifest to correctly parse yes|no. Also
> > correct the manpage to use those two terms as they were the ones used
> > in repos.conf and the news item.
> > ---
> > man/portage.5 | 4 ++--
> > pym/portage/sync/modules/rsync/rsync.py | 5 +++--
> > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/man/portage.5 b/man/portage.5
> > index 1f6259715..d4f755f51 100644
> > --- a/man/portage.5
> > +++ b/man/portage.5
> > @@ -1086,9 +1086,9 @@ directories if appropriate.
> > Number of parallel jobs to use when verifying nested Manifests. Defaults
> > to the apparent number of processors.
> > .TP
> > -.B sync\-rsync\-verify\-metamanifest = true|false
> > +.B sync\-rsync\-verify\-metamanifest = yes|no
> > Require the repository to contain a signed MetaManifest and verify
> > -it using \fBapp\-portage/gemato\fR. Defaults to false.
> > +it using \fBapp\-portage/gemato\fR. Defaults to no.
> >
> > .RE
> >
> > diff --git a/pym/portage/sync/modules/rsync/rsync.py
> > b/pym/portage/sync/modules/rsync/rsync.py
> > index d9d7d56f2..651e2d9f9 100644
> > --- a/pym/portage/sync/modules/rsync/rsync.py
> > +++ b/pym/portage/sync/modules/rsync/rsync.py
> > @@ -83,10 +83,11 @@ class RsyncSync(NewBase):
> >
> > self.repo.module_specific_options['sync-rsync-extra-opts']))
> >
> > # Process GLEP74 verification options.
> > - # Default verification to 'on' for ::gentoo, 'off' otherwise.
> > + # Default verification to 'no'; it's enabled for ::gentoo
> > + # via default repos.conf though.
> > self.verify_metamanifest = (
> > self.repo.module_specific_options.get(
> > - 'sync-rsync-verify-metamanifest',
> > False))
> > + 'sync-rsync-verify-metamanifest', 'no')
> > == 'yes')
>
> Many of our repos.conf options are currently using true|false, so this
> seems a lot more friendly:
>
> self.repo.module_specific_options.get(
> 'sync-rsync-verify-metamanifest', 'no') in ('true', 'yes')
>
I was actually thinking of introducing a bigger boolean parsing function
in a separate patch. But can do that for now.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
