Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] rewriting the ldconfig logic

[Zac Medico]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 01 April 2006 17:17, Zac Medico wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> i thought about this some more ... why do we even care about the mtimes
>>> during package merge ?  if a package doesnt install any files into a
>>> libdir, why should we bother running ldconfig ?  if a user updated the
>>> dirs, then they can either run ldconfig or env-update ...
>>>
>>> so imo, the logic should be:
>>> if srcroot is None:
>>> 
>>> else:
>>> 
>> Yeah, I think that's correct.  Also, even though we don't need to check the
>> mtimes when srcroot is defined, we can still update the mtimes in the
>> mtimedb to the current values in order to avoid an unnecessary ldconfig run
>> on the next env_update call.
> 
> feel like implementing this ?  that way we dont stop on each others feet 
> again 
> and i dont have to waste time when you rewrite my work ;)
> -mike

While investigating this I've found that srcroot will actually be emptied of 
all files in some cases.  For example, this happens when PORTAGE_TMPDIR is on 
the same root filesystem that is being merged to, and the files are merged via 
os.rename.  In these cases, srcroot becomes useless (passing in the CONTENTS 
would do the trick though).  Because of this, the srcroot parameter to 
env_update should be removed.

Zac

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEMxxD/ejvha5XGaMRAih0AJ9cIl6peHsEN2/MmYQeRpNOvAEQXwCfVMhz
QgJko+J7xgTgfXzzgGIYNsE=
=EdVn
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Repoman Help Extraction

[Marius Mauch]

On Mon, 03 Apr 2006 21:13:16 -0400
Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Two patches attached, one basically shows the repoman help,
> modes/options, and QA related text removed; relevant references
> replaced by repohelp. or repohelp..keys().
> 
> Second path shows basically that stuff being placed in a second file,
> with function calls replacing global code.
> 
> IIRC I think the qahelp() function call is missing from repoman in
> these patches, but I'm too lazy atm to modify them ;)
> 
> Mostly looking at yay or nay for the idea ;)

Please not another foohelp.py file. Better spend the time on a real
improvement that incorporates manpage/help generation from a common
source (talking about the warning help messages here, not necessarily
the option descriptions)

Marius
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list