Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 9/10/2012 10:39 PM, Duncan wrote: Gregory M. Turner posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:29:53 -0700 as excerpted: However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if /etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if possible, hardlinking those files would probably do the right thing for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm mistaken, which is always plausible :) Thanks. Reasonable approach and good to know. Well, I did warn about the likelihood I was wrong :) Pretty clever 'cause that way even when I'm wrong (as turns out to have been the case), I'm still right :P In all seriousness, if both of them are sourced, then could one get away with something like this? /etc/make.conf: source /etc/portage/make.conf /etc/portage/make.conf: if [[ __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE == gotit ]] ; then __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE=gotit . . . endif or are conditionals disallowed? As Zac mentions, hopefully it's harmless to duplicate things, but, personally, I would worry about the effect of duplicates on performance, and also in PORTDIR_OVERLAY. Plus, it just seems dirty. -gmt
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 09/12/2012 02:16 AM, Gregory M. Turner wrote: In all seriousness, if both of them are sourced, then could one get away with something like this? /etc/make.conf: source /etc/portage/make.conf /etc/portage/make.conf: if [[ __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE == gotit ]] ; then __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE=gotit . . . endif or are conditionals disallowed? Yes, conditionals are not allowed. The parser only supports variable assingments and source commands. As Zac mentions, hopefully it's harmless to duplicate things, but, personally, I would worry about the effect of duplicates on performance, and also in PORTDIR_OVERLAY. Plus, it just seems dirty. I would recommend to use /etc/make.conf alone, until whatever tools you use have been updated to support /etc/portage/make.conf. There's no need for any of these compatibility workarounds that you and Duncan have been suggesting. -- Thanks, Zac
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 09/10/2012 08:29 PM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
On 9/9/2012 6:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line
source /etc/portage/make.conf?
I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they?
If both /etc/portage/make.conf and /etc/make.conf were evaluated, stuff
like
FOO=${FOO} bar
could cause, i.e., duplications... not sure what all the rules are
limiting what one can and can't put in make.conf, but one could imagine
all kinds of wacky stuff.
It could cause duplicates, but for variables where FOO=${FOO} bar
makes sense, duplicates probably aren't harmful.
However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
/etc/portage/make.conf is present,
I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not true. Portage sources
both files, and settings from /etc/portage/make.conf will override
settings from /etc/make.conf.
so symlinking, or even better, if
possible, hardlinking those files would probably do the right thing
for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm
mistaken, which is always plausible :)
I would recommend to simply use /etc/make.conf alone until the legacy
tools that you use catch up. We have to change the default location in
the stages in order to expose the bugs so they can get fixed.
--
Thanks,
Zac
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Zac Medico posted on Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:29:36 -0700 as excerpted: I would recommend to simply use /etc/make.conf alone until the legacy tools that you use catch up. We have to change the default location in the stages in order to expose the bugs so they can get fixed. I posted to the portage-dev list about this so you probably already know, but for others, particularly users, following this transition thread: Gentoo's bash-completion breaks when make.conf is in /etc/portage. Bug filed back in early July and there's a simple enough patch, but app-shells/gentoo-bashcomp has only the shell-tools herd, no dedicated maintainer, and 13 open bugs including this one, all apparently portage (or gentoolkit) related, with the last release in 2010 (Dec) with stabilization a month later. So it's not seeing a lot of movement. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424777 So anyone who depends on tab-completion for their emerge commands, etc, may want to either hold off on the move or apply the patch manually, until this is fixed. FWIW here's the listing of all open app-shells/gentoo-bashcomp bugs: https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=app-shells%2Fgentoo-bashcomp -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 12 September 2012 08:02, Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net wrote: Gentoo's bash-completion breaks when make.conf is in /etc/portage. Bug filed back in early July and there's a simple enough patch, but app-shells/gentoo-bashcomp has only the shell-tools herd, no dedicated maintainer, and 13 open bugs including this one, all apparently portage (or gentoolkit) related, with the last release in 2010 (Dec) with stabilization a month later. So it's not seeing a lot of movement. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424777 So anyone who depends on tab-completion for their emerge commands, etc, may want to either hold off on the move or apply the patch manually, until this is fixed. Or use zsh instead. You can thank me later. ;-) -- Cheers, Ben | yngwin Gentoo developer Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Zac Medico posted on Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:34:09 -0700 as excerpted: On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote: To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line source /etc/portage/make.conf? I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they? Back then, portage complained. It's been awhile ago and I didn't write it down, but I seem to remember something about double inclusion. However, it's quite possible that was my diagnosis, not portage's complaint. I just returned to /etc/make.conf, because with both that and /etc/portage/make.conf portage had problems, and with /etc/portage/ make.conf only, something else didn't work. But as I said that was way back when I first read about it, probably in the changelog on my first update after it hit a release, so I'd guess it's looonngg fixed by now. Now that you've confirmed it works for you now, I'll play around with things a bit and file bugs if I see 'em. As always, thanks. =:^) (Now back to that kernel 3.6-git bug I just finished bisecting and was about to file upstream... workqueue merge, commit 63d95a91, crashing in schedule/core.c on line 1654, FWIW.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 9/9/2012 6:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line
source /etc/portage/make.conf?
I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they?
If both /etc/portage/make.conf and /etc/make.conf were evaluated, stuff like
FOO=${FOO} bar
could cause, i.e., duplications... not sure what all the rules are
limiting what one can and can't put in make.conf, but one could imagine
all kinds of wacky stuff.
However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
/etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if
possible, hardlinking those files would probably do the right thing
for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm
mistaken, which is always plausible :)
-gmt
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Gregory M. Turner posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:29:53 -0700 as excerpted: However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if /etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if possible, hardlinking those files would probably do the right thing for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm mistaken, which is always plausible :) Thanks. Reasonable approach and good to know. (I actually just did a sync. I should go adjust the location before I try to build anything, and start my own tests instead of debating what /could/ happen. Excuse me... =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Zac Medico posted on Sun, 09 Sep 2012 14:57:30 -0700 as excerpted: On 09/09/2012 02:42 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote: On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto jmbsvice...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 This news item was committed. So the news item was a bit ambiguous on if I wanted to make the change myself to the new locations when I could actually make the change. Current portage supports it? Or is their a new version coming which I would need? It's been supported in stable portage since portage-2.1.9.24 stabilized in November/December 2010: Zac, To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line source /etc/portage/make.conf? Back when I first became aware of the movement toward /etc/portage/make.conf, I'd guess in late 2010 or early 2011 given your dates, I tried both setting only /etc/portage/make.conf, which failed due to some third party utility (which I'd hope has been fixed now but I've not tested it), and making /etc/make.conf a simple symlink/source, which caused portage some indigestion. So I'm wondering if the latter problem's now (tested) fixed, and people can use the new location but still put either a compatibility symlink or source at the old location to keep old scripts and the like working, without portage suffering the indigestion at the prospect that it did at least way back then. If you haven't tested it and want me to, then file a bug if necessary, just say so, but it'd be nice to know whether you believe it to be working now, before I go try it again. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote: To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line source /etc/portage/make.conf? I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they? -- Thanks, Zac
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Duncan posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:59:32 + as excerpted: To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf cringe! I apologize for the terrible sentence structure (and spelling knowledge or rather practice). Hopefully it's obvious what I intended to ask, tho. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto posted on Sat, 08 Sep 2012 18:05:07 + as excerpted: Starting next week, new stages will have make.conf and make.profile moved from /etc to /etc/portage. This is a change in the installation defaults, that will only affect new installs so it doesn't affect current systems. Current users don't need to do anything. But if you want to follow the preferred location, you may want to take the chance to move the files in your system(s) to the new location. While the following reads somewhat smoother to me, maybe it's /just/ me, so another opinion would be appreciated. The current wording is already clear, so just going with it is fine with me. Starting next week, new stages will locate make.conf and make.profile in /etc/portage instead of /etc. This change to the installation defaults only affects new systems and both locations will continue to be supported. Whether you wish to move the files to their new /etc/portage location is therefore entirely up to you. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
[gentoo-dev] Re: News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)
Ulrich Mueller posted on Thu, 06 Sep 2012 07:30:46 +0200 as excerpted: On Thu, 06 Sep 2012, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote: Title: make.conf and make.profile move to /etc/portage 0112233 12345678091234567890123456789012345678901234567 Too long, maximum 44 characters are allowed. Suggestion: just omit to /etc/portage, leaving only Title: make.conf and make.profile move 0112233 1234567809123456789012345678901 The shortened title is enough to say what it's about and the body is IMO just about perfect in terms of info/brevity; in fact, perhaps the best I've seen, especially for a first draft, so good job! Now to hash out the profile problem... -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
