Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
On 03/16/2018 02:13 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu pią, 16.03.2018 o godzinie 10∶07 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
> napisał:
>> On 03/16/2018 03:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
>>> napisał:
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. What they change, in order:
>
> 1. Removes explicit file removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those
>values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries
>and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing.
>
> 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of
>pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes
>files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files,
>Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that.
>
> 3. Adds support for exclusions in INSTALL_MASK. In other words, you
>can do stuff like:
>
> INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/locale -/usr/share/locale/en_US"
>
> I have been using this via user patches since the last submission.
> Guessing by 'git log', this means almost 2 years now.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Michał Górny
>
> Michał Górny (3):
> portage.package.ebuild.config: Move FEATURES=no* handling there
> portage.dbapi.vartree: Move INSTALL_MASK handling into merging
> portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK
>
> bin/misc-functions.sh| 30 --
> pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 104
> ++-
> pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 11
> 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
I like this patch set but here are some important things that I want it
to do differently:
1) For the unmerge code, it needs to read the appropriate
/var/db/pkg/*/*/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK file in order to account for the
{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings that existed when the package was built
(PKG_INSTALL_MASK) and merged (INSTALL_MASK). A binary package should
use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time.
2) In order to support bashrc {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings, we need to
write the values from the environment to
${PORTAGE_BUILDDIR}/build-info/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK and read them from
there (we do this for many other variables including QA_PREBUILT).
>>>
>>> I presume bin/phase-functions.sh __dyn_install is where I'm supposed to
>>> write them. Could you suggest where is the best place to read them back?
>>
>> We can read them back just when they are needed.
>>
>> PKG_INSTALL_MASK should be handled in the EbuildPhase class when
>> self.phase is "package". In order to preserve behavior, EbuildPhase will
>> have to create a temporary copy of ${D} and apply PKG_INSTALL_MASK to
>> it, for __dyn_package to use.
>
> But do I need to change anything for PKG_INSTALL_MASK? My original patch
> did not touch that, so it can just continue happening as it is now.
>
>> INSTALL_MASK should be handled in the dblink treewalk method like it is now.
>
> But we also need to read it for unmerge, correct?
Oh right. We should load it in the dblink _match_contents or getcontents
method, since we need it for operation of the _match_contents method
which is called by isowner.
>>> Should the merge code do that explicitly while handling INSTALL_MASK, or
>>> should some of the config classes do that?
>>
>> The config class only needs to be involved if we want to expose some API
>> related to {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK there, but the config class is bloated
>> enough as it is so it's better to expose a helper class like the
>> ConfigProtect class.
>
--
Thanks,
Zac
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
W dniu pią, 16.03.2018 o godzinie 10∶07 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
napisał:
> On 03/16/2018 03:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
> > napisał:
> > > 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. What they change, in order:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Removes explicit file removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those
> > > >values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries
> > > >and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing.
> > > >
> > > > 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of
> > > >pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes
> > > >files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files,
> > > >Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Adds support for exclusions in INSTALL_MASK. In other words, you
> > > >can do stuff like:
> > > >
> > > > INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/locale -/usr/share/locale/en_US"
> > > >
> > > > I have been using this via user patches since the last submission.
> > > > Guessing by 'git log', this means almost 2 years now.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Michał Górny
> > > >
> > > > Michał Górny (3):
> > > > portage.package.ebuild.config: Move FEATURES=no* handling there
> > > > portage.dbapi.vartree: Move INSTALL_MASK handling into merging
> > > > portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK
> > > >
> > > > bin/misc-functions.sh| 30 --
> > > > pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 104
> > > > ++-
> > > > pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 11
> > > > 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > I like this patch set but here are some important things that I want it
> > > to do differently:
> > >
> > > 1) For the unmerge code, it needs to read the appropriate
> > > /var/db/pkg/*/*/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK file in order to account for the
> > > {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings that existed when the package was built
> > > (PKG_INSTALL_MASK) and merged (INSTALL_MASK). A binary package should
> > > use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time.
> > > 2) In order to support bashrc {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings, we need to
> > > write the values from the environment to
> > > ${PORTAGE_BUILDDIR}/build-info/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK and read them from
> > > there (we do this for many other variables including QA_PREBUILT).
> >
> > I presume bin/phase-functions.sh __dyn_install is where I'm supposed to
> > write them. Could you suggest where is the best place to read them back?
>
> We can read them back just when they are needed.
>
> PKG_INSTALL_MASK should be handled in the EbuildPhase class when
> self.phase is "package". In order to preserve behavior, EbuildPhase will
> have to create a temporary copy of ${D} and apply PKG_INSTALL_MASK to
> it, for __dyn_package to use.
But do I need to change anything for PKG_INSTALL_MASK? My original patch
did not touch that, so it can just continue happening as it is now.
> INSTALL_MASK should be handled in the dblink treewalk method like it is now.
But we also need to read it for unmerge, correct?
> > Should the merge code do that explicitly while handling INSTALL_MASK, or
> > should some of the config classes do that?
>
> The config class only needs to be involved if we want to expose some API
> related to {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK there, but the config class is bloated
> enough as it is so it's better to expose a helper class like the
> ConfigProtect class.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
On 03/16/2018 03:08 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
> napisał:
>> 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. What they change, in order:
>>>
>>> 1. Removes explicit file removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those
>>>values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries
>>>and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing.
>>>
>>> 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of
>>>pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes
>>>files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files,
>>>Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that.
>>>
>>> 3. Adds support for exclusions in INSTALL_MASK. In other words, you
>>>can do stuff like:
>>>
>>> INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/locale -/usr/share/locale/en_US"
>>>
>>> I have been using this via user patches since the last submission.
>>> Guessing by 'git log', this means almost 2 years now.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>> Michał Górny
>>>
>>> Michał Górny (3):
>>> portage.package.ebuild.config: Move FEATURES=no* handling there
>>> portage.dbapi.vartree: Move INSTALL_MASK handling into merging
>>> portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK
>>>
>>> bin/misc-functions.sh| 30 --
>>> pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 104
>>> ++-
>>> pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 11
>>> 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>>
>> I like this patch set but here are some important things that I want it
>> to do differently:
>>
>> 1) For the unmerge code, it needs to read the appropriate
>> /var/db/pkg/*/*/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK file in order to account for the
>> {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings that existed when the package was built
>> (PKG_INSTALL_MASK) and merged (INSTALL_MASK). A binary package should
>> use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time.
>
>> 2) In order to support bashrc {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings, we need to
>> write the values from the environment to
>> ${PORTAGE_BUILDDIR}/build-info/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK and read them from
>> there (we do this for many other variables including QA_PREBUILT).
>
> I presume bin/phase-functions.sh __dyn_install is where I'm supposed to
> write them. Could you suggest where is the best place to read them back?
We can read them back just when they are needed.
PKG_INSTALL_MASK should be handled in the EbuildPhase class when
self.phase is "package". In order to preserve behavior, EbuildPhase will
have to create a temporary copy of ${D} and apply PKG_INSTALL_MASK to
it, for __dyn_package to use.
INSTALL_MASK should be handled in the dblink treewalk method like it is now.
> Should the merge code do that explicitly while handling INSTALL_MASK, or
> should some of the config classes do that?
The config class only needs to be involved if we want to expose some API
related to {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK there, but the config class is bloated
enough as it is so it's better to expose a helper class like the
ConfigProtect class.
--
Thanks,
Zac
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] portage.dbapi.vartree: Remove one more unfounded virtual case
On 03/16/2018 03:05 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> ---
> pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 7 ---
> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py b/pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py
> index 8b1b77f7d..6406682d6 100644
> --- a/pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py
> +++ b/pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py
> @@ -3747,13 +3747,6 @@ class dblink(object):
> is_binpkg = self.settings.get("EMERGE_FROM") == "binary"
> slot = ''
> for var_name in ('CHOST', 'SLOT'):
> - if var_name == 'CHOST' and self.cat == 'virtual':
> - try:
> - os.unlink(os.path.join(inforoot,
> var_name))
> - except OSError:
> - pass
> - continue
> -
> try:
> with io.open(_unicode_encode(
> os.path.join(inforoot, var_name),
>
Looks good, please merge.
--
Thanks,
Zac
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 22∶10 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico
napisał:
> 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. What they change, in order:
> >
> > 1. Removes explicit file removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those
> >values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries
> >and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing.
> >
> > 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of
> >pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes
> >files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files,
> >Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that.
> >
> > 3. Adds support for exclusions in INSTALL_MASK. In other words, you
> >can do stuff like:
> >
> > INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/locale -/usr/share/locale/en_US"
> >
> > I have been using this via user patches since the last submission.
> > Guessing by 'git log', this means almost 2 years now.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Michał Górny
> >
> > Michał Górny (3):
> > portage.package.ebuild.config: Move FEATURES=no* handling there
> > portage.dbapi.vartree: Move INSTALL_MASK handling into merging
> > portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK
> >
> > bin/misc-functions.sh| 30 --
> > pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 104
> > ++-
> > pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 11
> > 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>
> I like this patch set but here are some important things that I want it
> to do differently:
>
> 1) For the unmerge code, it needs to read the appropriate
> /var/db/pkg/*/*/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK file in order to account for the
> {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings that existed when the package was built
> (PKG_INSTALL_MASK) and merged (INSTALL_MASK). A binary package should
> use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time.
> 2) In order to support bashrc {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings, we need to
> write the values from the environment to
> ${PORTAGE_BUILDDIR}/build-info/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK and read them from
> there (we do this for many other variables including QA_PREBUILT).
I presume bin/phase-functions.sh __dyn_install is where I'm supposed to
write them. Could you suggest where is the best place to read them back?
Should the merge code do that explicitly while handling INSTALL_MASK, or
should some of the config classes do that?
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] portage.dbapi.vartree: Remove one more unfounded virtual case
---
pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 7 ---
1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py b/pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py
index 8b1b77f7d..6406682d6 100644
--- a/pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py
+++ b/pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py
@@ -3747,13 +3747,6 @@ class dblink(object):
is_binpkg = self.settings.get("EMERGE_FROM") == "binary"
slot = ''
for var_name in ('CHOST', 'SLOT'):
- if var_name == 'CHOST' and self.cat == 'virtual':
- try:
- os.unlink(os.path.join(inforoot,
var_name))
- except OSError:
- pass
- continue
-
try:
with io.open(_unicode_encode(
os.path.join(inforoot, var_name),
--
2.16.2
[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] EventLoop: implement time method for asyncio compat (bug 591760)
Use time.monotonic() which is available in Python 3.3 and later, and otherwise emulate it by using an offset to counteract any backward movements. Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/591760 --- pym/portage/util/_eventloop/EventLoop.py | 19 ++- pym/portage/util/monotonic.py| 32 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) create mode 100644 pym/portage/util/monotonic.py diff --git a/pym/portage/util/_eventloop/EventLoop.py b/pym/portage/util/_eventloop/EventLoop.py index 89ac2a3b3..f472a3dae 100644 --- a/pym/portage/util/_eventloop/EventLoop.py +++ b/pym/portage/util/_eventloop/EventLoop.py @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Copyright 1999-2016 Gentoo Foundation +# Copyright 1999-2018 Gentoo Foundation # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 from __future__ import division @@ -9,7 +9,6 @@ import os import select import signal import sys -import time try: import fcntl @@ -29,6 +28,7 @@ portage.proxy.lazyimport.lazyimport(globals(), from portage import OrderedDict from portage.util import writemsg_level +from portage.util.monotonic import monotonic from ..SlotObject import SlotObject from .PollConstants import PollConstants from .PollSelectAdapter import PollSelectAdapter @@ -515,7 +515,7 @@ class EventLoop(object): self._timeout_handlers[source_id] = \ self._timeout_handler_class( interval=interval, function=function, args=args, - source_id=source_id, timestamp=time.time()) + source_id=source_id, timestamp=self.time()) if self._timeout_interval is None or \ self._timeout_interval > interval: self._timeout_interval = interval @@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ class EventLoop(object): return bool(calls) ready_timeouts = [] - current_time = time.time() + current_time = self.time() for x in self._timeout_handlers.values(): elapsed_seconds = current_time - x.timestamp # elapsed_seconds < 0 means the system clock has been adjusted @@ -558,7 +558,7 @@ class EventLoop(object): calls += 1 x.calling = True try: - x.timestamp = time.time() + x.timestamp = self.time() if not x.function(*x.args): self.source_remove(x.source_id) finally: @@ -684,6 +684,15 @@ class EventLoop(object): # The call_soon method inherits thread safety from the idle_add method. call_soon_threadsafe = call_soon + def time(self): + """Return the time according to the event loop's clock. + + This is a float expressed in seconds since an epoch, but the + epoch, precision, accuracy and drift are unspecified and may + differ per event loop. + """ + return monotonic() + def call_later(self, delay, callback, *args): """ Arrange for the callback to be called after the given delay seconds diff --git a/pym/portage/util/monotonic.py b/pym/portage/util/monotonic.py new file mode 100644 index 0..da1cce1c5 --- /dev/null +++ b/pym/portage/util/monotonic.py @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +# Copyright 2018 Gentoo Foundation +# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 + +__all__ = ['monotonic'] + +import time +try: + import threading +except ImportError: + import dummy_threading as threading + +monotonic = getattr(time, 'monotonic', None) + +if monotonic is None: + def monotonic(): + """ + Emulate time.monotonic() which is available in Python 3.3 and later. + + @return: A float expressed in seconds since an epoch. + """ + with monotonic._lock: + current = time.time() + delta = current - monotonic._previous + if delta < 0: + monotonic._offset -= delta + monotonic._previous = current + monotonic._offset + return monotonic._previous + + # offset is used to counteract any backward movements + monotonic._offset = 0 + monotonic._previous = time.time() + monotonic._lock = threading.Lock() -- 2.13.6
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 22:10 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> 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. What they change, in order:
> >
> > 1. Removes explicit file removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those
> >values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries
> >and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing.
> >
> > 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of
> >pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes
> >files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files,
> >Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that.
> >
> > 3. Adds support for exclusions in INSTALL_MASK. In other words, you
> >can do stuff like:
> >
> > INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/locale -/usr/share/locale/en_US"
> >
> > I have been using this via user patches since the last submission.
> > Guessing by 'git log', this means almost 2 years now.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Michał Górny
> >
> > Michał Górny (3):
> > portage.package.ebuild.config: Move FEATURES=no* handling there
> > portage.dbapi.vartree: Move INSTALL_MASK handling into merging
> > portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK
> >
> > bin/misc-functions.sh| 30 --
> > pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py | 104
> > ++-
> > pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 11
> > 3 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
>
> I like this patch set but here are some important things that I want it
> to do differently:
>
> 1) For the unmerge code, it needs to read the appropriate
> /var/db/pkg/*/*/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK file in order to account for the
> {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings that existed when the package was built
> (PKG_INSTALL_MASK) and merged (INSTALL_MASK). A binary package should
> use the value of INSTALL_MASK that existed at build time.
Why does unmerge code need to know PKG_INSTALL_MASK? The files are not
installed so nothing to filter ?
similarly for merge of binary pkgs I guess, PKG_INSTALL_MASKed files are not
in the binary packed so no need to something special in this case ?
>
> 2) In order to support bashrc {PKG,}INSTALL_MASK settings, we need to
> write the values from the environment to
> ${PORTAGE_BUILDDIR}/build-info/{PKG,}INSTALL_MASK and read them from
> there (we do this for many other variables including QA_PREBUILT).
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
W dniu pią, 16.03.2018 o godzinie 08∶11 +, użytkownik Joakim
Tjernlund napisał:
> On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 20:22 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> > click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know
> > the content is safe.
> >
> >
> > 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 removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those
> >values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries
> >and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing.
> >
> > 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of
> >pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes
> >files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files,
> >Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that.
>
> Will this also remove corresponding split debug files?
> There would be little/no point in keeping debug syms if the binary has been
> MASKed
>
Nope. Add both paths to INSTALL_MASK. Expecting it to do implicit magic
is a very bad idea.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Stop crippling metadata for virtual/*
There is no technical requirement that virtual/* packages will reliably
contain no executable code. Therefore, stop crippling the metadata
stored in vdb for them.
---
bin/phase-functions.sh | 24 ++--
pym/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py | 11 ---
2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
diff --git a/bin/phase-functions.sh b/bin/phase-functions.sh
index 0ceddb451..6ae61b2f0 100644
--- a/bin/phase-functions.sh
+++ b/bin/phase-functions.sh
@@ -662,23 +662,19 @@ __dyn_install() {
local f x
IFS=$' \t\n\r'
for f in CATEGORY DEFINED_PHASES FEATURES INHERITED IUSE \
- PF PKGUSE SLOT KEYWORDS HOMEPAGE DESCRIPTION ; do
+ PF PKGUSE SLOT KEYWORDS HOMEPAGE DESCRIPTION \
+ ASFLAGS CBUILD CC CFLAGS CHOST CTARGET CXX \
+ CXXFLAGS EXTRA_ECONF EXTRA_EINSTALL EXTRA_MAKE \
+ LDFLAGS LIBCFLAGS LIBCXXFLAGS QA_CONFIGURE_OPTIONS \
+ QA_DESKTOP_FILE QA_PREBUILT PROVIDES_EXCLUDE REQUIRES_EXCLUDE ;
do
+
x=$(echo -n ${!f})
[[ -n $x ]] && echo "$x" > $f
done
- if [[ $CATEGORY != virtual ]] ; then
- for f in ASFLAGS CBUILD CC CFLAGS CHOST CTARGET CXX \
- CXXFLAGS EXTRA_ECONF EXTRA_EINSTALL EXTRA_MAKE \
- LDFLAGS LIBCFLAGS LIBCXXFLAGS QA_CONFIGURE_OPTIONS \
- QA_DESKTOP_FILE QA_PREBUILT PROVIDES_EXCLUDE
REQUIRES_EXCLUDE ; do
- x=$(echo -n ${!f})
- [[ -n $x ]] && echo "$x" > $f
- done
- # whitespace preserved
- for f in QA_AM_MAINTAINER_MODE ; do
- [[ -n ${!f} ]] && echo "${!f}" > $f
- done
- fi
+ # whitespace preserved
+ for f in QA_AM_MAINTAINER_MODE ; do
+ [[ -n ${!f} ]] && echo "${!f}" > $f
+ done
echo "${USE}" > USE
echo "${EAPI:-0}" > EAPI
diff --git a/pym/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py
b/pym/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py
index 8cec8e4da..8436c0b10 100644
--- a/pym/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py
+++ b/pym/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py
@@ -1930,13 +1930,10 @@ def _post_src_install_write_metadata(settings):
if v is not None:
write_atomic(os.path.join(build_info_dir, k), v + '\n')
- # The following variables are irrelevant for virtual packages.
- if settings.get('CATEGORY') != 'virtual':
-
- for k in ('CHOST',):
- v = settings.get(k)
- if v is not None:
- write_atomic(os.path.join(build_info_dir, k), v
+ '\n')
+ for k in ('CHOST',):
+ v = settings.get(k)
+ if v is not None:
+ write_atomic(os.path.join(build_info_dir, k), v + '\n')
with io.open(_unicode_encode(os.path.join(build_info_dir,
'BUILD_TIME'), encoding=_encodings['fs'], errors='strict'),
--
2.16.2
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/3] INSTALL_MASK refurbishing resubmit
On Thu, 2018-03-15 at 20:22 +0100, Michał Górny wrote:
> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click
> links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the
> content is safe.
>
>
> 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 removal code for FEATURES=no*. Instead, those
>values are converted into additional INSTALL_MASK entries
>and handled directly via INSTALL_MASK processing.
>
> 2. Rework INSTALL_MASK to filter files while installing instead of
>pre-stripping them. In other words, before: INSTALL_MASK removes
>files from ${D} before merge. After: ${D} contains all the files,
>Portage just skip INSTALL_MASK-ed stuff, verbosely indicating that.
Will this also remove corresponding split debug files?
There would be little/no point in keeping debug syms if the binary has been
MASKed
Jocke
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK
On Fri, 2018-03-16 at 08:50 +0100, Michał Górny wrote: > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click > links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the > content is safe. > > > W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 21∶44 +, użytkownik Joakim > Tjernlund napisał: > > 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 pattern determines whether the file is actually > > > > filtered out or kept. > > > > --- > > > > Yes, please ! I just needed this feature 2 hours ago. > > I need the same for PKG_INSTALL_MASK > > > > I hope this allows me to do: > > INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/i18n/locales/* -/usr/share/i18n/locales/en_GB > > -/usr/share/i18n/locales/sv_SE" > > to all in /usr/share/i18n/locales/* but /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_GB and > > /usr/share/i18n/locales/sv_SE > > removed in usr/share/i18n/locales/ ? > > > > Yes, that is the intended use case. Thanks, while on the subject I had a similar idea for stripping: Today one have to build all files in glibc with debug syms just to get debug syms for perf/valgrind in ld.so so it would be great if one could specify that just some files should have debug syms. Jocke
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK
W dniu czw, 15.03.2018 o godzinie 21∶44 +, użytkownik Joakim Tjernlund napisał: > 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 pattern determines whether the file is actually > > > filtered out or kept. > > > --- > > Yes, please ! I just needed this feature 2 hours ago. > I need the same for PKG_INSTALL_MASK > > I hope this allows me to do: > INSTALL_MASK="/usr/share/i18n/locales/* -/usr/share/i18n/locales/en_GB > -/usr/share/i18n/locales/sv_SE" > to all in /usr/share/i18n/locales/* but /usr/share/i18n/locales/en_GB and > /usr/share/i18n/locales/sv_SE > removed in usr/share/i18n/locales/ ? > Yes, that is the intended use case. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
