Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How to deal with git sources?

> Perhaps they refer to .zip instead of .tar.gz which as mentioned is > a less stable format due to the inclusion of the timezone. Nope. I myself also faced tarballs checksum difference (even between few calls). GH support answered me (in TL;DR version) "that's because we've upgraded git on

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK

Allow INSTALL_MASK patterns to start with '-' to indicate that a specific match is to be excluded from being masked. In this case, the last matching pattern determines whether the file is actually filtered out or kept. --- pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 10 ++ 1 file changed, 6

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit

Hi, Here are three of four INSTALL_MASK updates I've sent long time ago which were not really reviewed. The fourth patch added support for repo-defined install-mask.conf and I'll do that separately. Those patches focus on smaller changes. What they change, in order: 1. Removes explicit file

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/3] portage.dbapi.vartree: Move INSTALL_MASK handling into merging

Introduce a new logic for INSTALL_MASK handling in merging code, replacing the old code that removed matching files and directories from imagedir in bash. The new code actually ignores matching files on-the-fly while testing for file collisions and merging files. The files are still written to

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/3] portage.package.ebuild.config: Move FEATURES=no* handling there

Move the code responsible for adding additional paths to INSTALL_MASK into portage.package.ebuild.config. --- bin/misc-functions.sh| 13 - pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 10 ++ 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Allow INSTALL_MASK patterns to start with '-' to indicate that > a specific match is to be excluded from being masked. In this case, > the last matching pattern determines whether the file is actually > filtered out or

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK

On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 17:02 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Allow INSTALL_MASK patterns to start with '-' to indicate that > > a specific match is to be excluded from being masked. In this case, > > the last matching

[gentoo-dev] Most of my packages up for grabs

My past jobs have worn me out, which combined with upstream work, caused me to become minimally active for some time. I am in the middle of some changes to my life that will likely change that, but I don't use most of the packages that I maintain anymore and they have gotten very little attention

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK

W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 17∶02 -0400, użytkownik Alec Warner napisał: > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Allow INSTALL_MASK patterns to start with '-' to indicate that > > a specific match is to be excluded from being masked. In this case, >

[gentoo-dev] Re: How to deal with git sources?

Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: > > GH support answered me (in TL;DR version) "that's because we've upgraded git > on *some* of our nodes" (means, some other using older git) That would still require that the "git archive" output would have changed in some recent git versions.

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit

On 03/15/2018 12:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, > > Here are three of four INSTALL_MASK updates I've sent long time ago > which were not really reviewed. The fourth patch added support > for repo-defined install-mask.conf and I'll do that separately. > > Those patches focus on smaller changes.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: How to deal with git sources?

On 03/15/2018 07:20 PM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov wrote: >> >> GH support answered me (in TL;DR version) "that's because we've upgraded git >> on *some* of our nodes" (means, some other using older git) > > That would still require that the "git archive"