Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] bindbapi: add reentrant lock method (bug 685236)

2019-05-08 Thread Alec Warner
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:05 PM Zac Medico wrote: > On 5/7/19 1:01 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 5/7/19 7:55 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > >> Also curious why we are not implementing enter and exit so we can avoid > >> unbalanced pairs by using context managers. > >> > >> e.g. in match(), we could

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

2019-05-08 Thread Matt Turner
On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 3:19 AM Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:01:21 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 > > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > > > There's multilib that adds a lot of

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] bindbapi: add reentrant lock method (bug 685236)

2019-05-08 Thread Zac Medico
On 5/7/19 1:01 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 5/7/19 7:55 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > >> Also curious why we are not implementing enter and exit so we can avoid >> unbalanced pairs by using context managers. >> >> e.g. in match(), we could likely write: >> >> with self.dbapi.lock(): >>   # try to match

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

2019-05-08 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:31:47 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 12:19 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:01:21 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 > > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

2019-05-08 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 12:19 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:01:21 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 > > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > > > There's multilib that adds a lot

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

2019-05-08 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 08 May 2019 12:01:21 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 > > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > There's multilib that adds a lot of flags with a single eclass > > > > change, but I'd guess the number

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

2019-05-08 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > > There's multilib that adds a lot of flags with a single eclass > > > change, but I'd guess the number of packages and flags is > > > constantly growing, so sooner or later

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

2019-05-08 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > > There's multilib that adds a lot of flags with a single eclass > > change, but I'd guess the number of packages and flags is > > constantly growing, so sooner or later you'll be hit by this again > > and no multilib killing will help you

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

2019-05-08 Thread Michał Górny
On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:29 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Tue, 07 May 2019 23:47:30 +0200 > Michał Górny wrote: > > > While the large number of flags is practically invisible to user with > > all the USE_EXPAND hiding, it negatively impacts pkgcheck. When > > the number reached 10, CI

Re: [gentoo-dev] Rethinking multilib flags in Gentoo

2019-05-08 Thread Alexis Ballier
On Tue, 07 May 2019 23:47:30 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > While the large number of flags is practically invisible to user with > all the USE_EXPAND hiding, it negatively impacts pkgcheck. When > the number reached 10, CI became unusable. We're currently back down > to 8, thanks to powerpc