Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] backend support for FEATURES=debug-build (again)
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 11 May 2006 02:41, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: yes, it's a user-friendly interface issue: we have *no* *sane* way of doing a debug emerge I don't find this particular implementation very user-friendly either, if you read my original e-mail in this thread (or even the subject), i said this is the back-end changes *only* the next step is to add `emerge --debug-build foo` since AFAIK the FEATURES settings still aren't remembered nor should they or settable on a per-package level. unrelated topic, see per-package.env bug That's why x-modular.eclass has USE=debug to accomplish the same thing. which is totally wrong read the thread i started on gentoo-dev where i went over how USE=debug in the portage tree is complete trash atm It may be wrong, but it's the only way that works usefully. This is totally useless IMHO until you can set it on a per-package level, so they are related. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] backend support for FEATURES=debug-build (again)
Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 11 May 2006 14:23, Donnie Berkholz wrote: Mike Frysinger wrote: On Thursday 11 May 2006 02:41, Donnie Berkholz wrote: That's why x-modular.eclass has USE=debug to accomplish the same thing. which is totally wrong read the thread i started on gentoo-dev where i went over how USE=debug in the portage tree is complete trash atm It may be wrong, but it's the only way that works usefully. so you'd rather stick with a known crappy/inconsistent methodology then move in the proper direction ? this debug-build FEATURES is the proper direction I agree with the direction, when one includes the per-package env bit. This is totally useless IMHO until you can set it on a per-package level, bashrc hacks can add insert FEATURES on a per package basis until proper portage support is in place, but unlike the previous bashrc suggestion, this is a stop gap, not the correct, solution i'm willing to forgo this (imo) minor aspect in favor of cutting the unreliable USE=debug from the tree I'm not. But I will agree that this is the correct direction. Once both parts of the puzzle are in place, then I will support cutting USE=debug -- but not until one can reproduce its functionality sans hacks. No point in replacing one hack with another. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?
Zac Medico wrote: Well, please file a bug then. How are we supposed to fix bugs that we aren't aware of? :) With the portage regression test suite, of course. =) Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Manifest2 reloaded
Brian Harring wrote: python -m timeit -s 's=asdf*400;s+=fdsa.ebuild' 's.endswith(.ebuild)' 100 loops, best of 3: 0.88 usec per loop python -m timeit -s 's=asdf*400;s+=fdsa.ebuild' 's[-7:] == .ebuild' 100 loops, best of 3: 0.564 usec per loop Use endswith oddly, worth noting that startswith differs in this behaviour... python -m timeit -s 's=asdf*400;s+=fdsa.ebuild' 's[:7] == .ebuild' 100 loops, best of 3: 0.592 usec per loop python -m timeit -s 's=asdf*400;s+=fdsa.ebuild' 's.startswith(.ebuild)' 100 loops, best of 3: 0.842 usec per loop Um, those both read the same way to me. You just switched the ordering around, so the (starts|ends)with is on the bottom instead of the top, but both times (starts|ends)with is longer. Thanks, Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions regarding the new portage API (savior branch)
Brian Harring wrote: If y'all want to mirror it, might I suggest poking marienz for his tailorization knowledge? Afaik, he had a bzr-svn push working, or at least has investigated it. From what I've heard, tailor has absolutely no knowledge of branches. So if you use branches, might want to tread carefully with tailor. Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions regarding the new portage API (savior branch)
Brian Harring wrote: I switched over to bzr about 2 months back; svn doesn't allow for offline committing, nor does gentoo's vcs allow for anon*... bzr natively allows for those capabilities, so that's what I'm using. :) http://gentooexperimental.org/~ferringb/bzr/saviour Is where I'll be updating the code for at least the near future. Oh c'mon, be trendy and use git. bzr is so last year. Donnie signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-portage-dev] Portage rating in O'Reilly book
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I don't know whether all of you read my blog, but I wanted to make sure you saw this: http://www.livejournal.com/users/spyderous/60809.html?thread=89737#t89737. It's a reply from the author of a book on why he rated our package management at a 4 instead of a 5, and it gives some good ideas on where users feel things could improve. Feel free to ignore the binary packages bit, as that's more of a Gentoo philosophical issue. Thanks, Donnie -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDc5riXVaO67S1rtsRAkWBAJ9QkjDsltO24UrGW9oF2WKNkAL1cACfUDRY OcCUgni8pLJ9CMxN/Bx1fC0= =wOGZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
