Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] virtuals and dependencies dispaly

2006-10-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 16:36, Brian wrote: def get_virtual_dep(atom): returns a resolved virtual dependency. contributed by Jason Stubbs, with a little adaptation # Thanks Jason non_virtual_atom = portage.dep_virtual([atom], portage.settings)[0] if atom

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] virtuals and dependencies dispaly

2006-10-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
of associated ebuilds. As for ordering, packages with PROVIDE override identically named packages in the tree. If you use something similar to the above, it should all be taken care of though. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] accessing portage updates through it's data structures

2006-04-18 Thread Jason Stubbs
in updatable_pkgs if pkg] That last line there is to kill off the None elements that end up in updatable_pkgs when there is a package installed that has no versions available in the rsync tree. Other than that, portage.catpkgsplit() will split a package identifier into [cat, pkg, ver, rev]. -- Jason

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 15 April 2006 03:31, Brian Harring wrote: Sidenote, why is userfetch a feature? That seems like something that should be userpriv by default to me... It broke somebody's ftp setup. http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92960 -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
s/ftp/nfs/ in the mail that I just sent. -- Jason Stubbsw -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 15 April 2006 03:31, Brian Harring wrote: cache backend selection (failed import == defaults to sys default) This is incorrect. It displays an error message and quits. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon?

2006-04-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 08 April 2006 21:48, Ned Ludd wrote: On Sat, 2006-04-08 at 11:18 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 08 April 2006 07:36, Ned Ludd wrote: On Fri, 2006-04-07 at 14:19 -0400, solar wrote: FEATURES=buildpkg ROOT=/ emerge gcc rm -rf /dev/shm/foo ROOT=/dev/shm/foo

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] should we add userpriv and usersandox to make.globals FEATURES?

2006-04-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
performance hit and I'm a ricer. :P -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] tree dependency check

2006-03-30 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 30 March 2006 11:40, Marius Mauch wrote: On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 08:30:17 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 30 March 2006 01:21, Marius Mauch wrote: Marius Mauch schrieb: So after manifest2 is in, I'll revive the other issue that IMO is a requirement

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: User created package lists

2006-03-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 23 March 2006 16:23, Brian wrote: /etc/portage/lists/userlist1 format: net-www/apache www-apache/mod_perl ... If you make that /etc/portage/sets and support any package atom (rather than only cat/pkg) then I you'd pretty much have what is planned (afaik). -- Jason Stubbs

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: User created package lists

2006-03-23 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 23 March 2006 23:43, Brian wrote: On Thu, 2006-23-03 at 22:14 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Thursday 23 March 2006 16:23, Brian wrote: /etc/portage/lists/userlist1 format: net-www/apache www-apache/mod_perl ... If you make that /etc/portage/sets

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] kudoos to all

2006-03-15 Thread Jason Stubbs
are made - but very promising. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Move PORTAGE_INST_UID and PORTAGE_INST_GID to make.globals?

2006-03-10 Thread Jason Stubbs
place to set these? If not, can we twist the logic to make it so? :p The profiles would be able to override it. In the case of non-incrementals the first definition found is the winner in the order of: env - make.conf - make.defaults (profile) - make.globals -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] vdb-update script (for global updates) with job progress framework

2006-02-28 Thread Jason Stubbs
minutes to counter the regression of emerge warning on unsatisfiable world file entries. It was/is not meant to stand the test of time in its current state. Why would you want to muddy up your code with it? ;) -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Config Cleanup Last Call

2006-02-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
of the patch -43/+42. What is the goal? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Config Cleanup Last Call

2006-02-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
]: - # These require HTTP Encoding ... This shouldn't be in a cleanup patch either. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Deprecating 'emerge action' syntax

2006-02-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
use --update instead. emerge: there are no ebuilds to satisfy update. Doing it that way will show exactly why it's being dropped without the need for a written explanation (and hopefully no bug about how it's a terrible usability regression). -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Deprecating 'emerge action' syntax

2006-02-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
there being much of a problem, but so that we can redo that whole bunch of code without having to do: if incorrect_syntax: print warning make correct syntax -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] IUSE_DEFAULTS-v0.1

2006-02-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
is only for portage_const, so the tool remains sensored. Unless I'm missing something. Nah, Brian's right. Tools need to follow. Backwards compatibility isn't so important there. The important thing is that portage keeps on living. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] confcache, final chance to ixnay it

2006-02-02 Thread Jason Stubbs
not rewriting all of doebuild just for this :) Happy here. If there were no other issues, may as well go ahead with it earlier rather than later. Spread the goodness (or something like that ;) -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] confcache integration

2006-01-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
by this. No clues on the bash stuff; it seems there's an external confcache binary but I can't tell much beyond that. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-2.1_pre2 and new use flag showing with emerge -p

2005-12-26 Thread Jason Stubbs
-sdk -static truetype-fonts -type1-fonts -xprint xv INPUT_DEVICES=-synaptics -wacom 44,520 kB I doubt that the NEW and OLD would really be visible in the --verbose output in the general case anyway. How about just making added flags green to match the output of changed flags? -- Jason Stubbs

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] per ebuild distdir symlinking

2005-12-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
? No problems on my part. As Mike said, it'll only catch the standard unpack usage but that's not really an issue as far as I can see. By the way, now that we've got -commit mail, confirming with the ML isn't really necessary. Of course, if it's something you want to confirm... -- Jason Stubbs

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] making the tree depend on portage

2005-12-20 Thread Jason Stubbs
as likely to need the functionality as we are. Combining that with how rarely versions are actually updated for system packages, it shouldn't cause any more bother to users than it needs to. -- Jason Stubbs Index: bin/emerge

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] making the tree depend on portage

2005-12-20 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 23:15, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Tuesday 20 December 2005 01:49, Marius Mauch wrote: Also not talking about implementation details yet, just after comments about the general idea of forced portage updates. I gave it a go anyway... ;) Also needed: Index: portage.py

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: parallel-fetch

2005-12-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 16 December 2005 19:01, Brian Harring wrote: On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:09:10PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Thursday 15 December 2005 20:06, Brian Harring wrote: This is the only blocker for merging parallel-fetch as far as I can tell- so... my vote is nuking the wait out

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DepSet

2005-12-08 Thread Jason Stubbs
) and not atom.blocks: okay_atoms.add(atom) Combining those two gives: if atom.blocks and not atom.match(child) or \ atom.match(child) and not atom.blocks: okay_atoms.add(atom) Which is exactly the same thing as the original except seven lines longer... -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DepSet

2005-12-08 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 09 December 2005 04:03, Zac Medico wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: On Thursday 08 December 2005 16:44, Zac Medico wrote: The middle hunk fixes a problem with block atoms that do not match any packages. Previously, these atoms would not make it into the okay_atoms set which caused

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-07 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 11:57, Marius Mauch wrote: On Wed, 7 Dec 2005 08:41:27 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:01, Marius Mauch wrote: On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there's no solid

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-06 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 11:29, Zac Medico wrote: Ned Ludd wrote: On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Okay, new suggestion. Postpone the cache rewrite from above. Have only the minimal mods necessary to fix the PORT_LOGDIR/tee bug. Include the other two

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-06 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 11:17, Ned Ludd wrote: On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Okay, new suggestion. Postpone the cache rewrite from above. Have only the minimal mods necessary to fix the PORT_LOGDIR/tee bug. Include the other two as is. That would be 2.0.54

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-06 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 21:37, Alec Warner wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: On Tuesday 06 December 2005 11:17, Ned Ludd wrote: On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 23:06 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Okay, new suggestion. Postpone the cache rewrite from above. Have only the minimal mods

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-06 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 07 December 2005 01:01, Marius Mauch wrote: On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 23:19:38 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If there's no solid opposition, Saturday I will put current trunk into ~arch as 2.1_beta20051210. Well, I've already stated several times that IMO using a 2.1

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-05 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 01 December 2005 22:28, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Monday 28 November 2005 03:49, Marius Mauch wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:09, Marius Mauch wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: Well, the vote was more for the SHA1 change actually as that's the one triggering

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-05 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 00:21, Alec Warner wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: Okay, new suggestion. Postpone the cache rewrite from above. Have only the minimal mods necessary to fix the PORT_LOGDIR/tee bug. Include the other two as is. That would be 2.0.54 as per the attached patch. Get

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] VDB double reading

2005-12-03 Thread Jason Stubbs
the passed virtuals anymore. Hence, all calls to getvirtuals() external to the config class could theoretically be dropped and replaced with an empty dictionary. The only possibility of breakage in doing that is if other parts of portage are accessing *tree's virtual member directly. -- Jason Stubbs

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-12-01 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 28 November 2005 03:49, Marius Mauch wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 27 November 2005 00:09, Marius Mauch wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: Well, the vote was more for the SHA1 change actually as that's the one triggering the size increase. The pycrypto stuff itself doesn't do

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-11-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 27 November 2005 02:03, Ned Ludd wrote: On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 13:15 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 26 November 2005 02:05, Ned Ludd wrote: On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 00:51 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 26 November 2005 00:31, Ned Ludd wrote: * post_sync action

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] CDEPEND removal

2005-11-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
to remove or not. The cache entry for CDEP has been replaced with a blank line to keep the cache format compatible. The CDEPEND in auxdbkeys is needed, but it won't cause any harm other than the extra 10 or 11 bytes added to portage.py. This patch is pretty much perfect as it is. :) -- Jason Stubbs

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] CDEPEND removal

2005-11-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 28 November 2005 00:20, Ned Ludd wrote: On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 00:15 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Monday 28 November 2005 00:01, Ned Ludd wrote: The following untested attached patch removes CDEPEND from ebuild.sh A quick grep -i shows that there is one case of CDEPEND left

[gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-11-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-11-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 26 November 2005 00:31, Ned Ludd wrote: On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 00:01 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Hi all, I don't think there's really anything else that can be done for 2.0.53 so am thinking that we should probably push _rc7 + docs out and let the arch teams mark it stable

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-11-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 26 November 2005 11:07, Marius Mauch wrote: On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 00:01:15 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only other new thing in trunk that I know of is logging but there's still a question mark over the ordering of messages... Can that be resolved soon

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] .53, .54 and beyond...

2005-11-25 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 26 November 2005 02:05, Ned Ludd wrote: On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 00:51 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 26 November 2005 00:31, Ned Ludd wrote: * post_sync action hook (.53/.54 ) * VDB prevention of single byte NULL entries being created. ( .54 ) Doable for .54. Yeah

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Making pax-utils a depend

2005-11-19 Thread Jason Stubbs
inherint dislike of awk, algo is there. Should be schlopped into emaint though imo; you game, or want someone to do the python bits? emaint needs the plugin stuff for that to happen, but yeah... -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plugin backport PATCH (1/2)/(2/2)

2005-11-18 Thread Jason Stubbs
+   doc = \n.join(map(lambda x:x.lstrip(), doc.split(\n))) +\n +   doc += proxied call to module level registry instances %s method % x +   globals()[x] = pretty_docs(v, doc) + +del x, v, proxy_it, doc What's this currying and pretty_docs stuff? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Making pax-utils a depend

2005-11-18 Thread Jason Stubbs
for the an updated verify-rdepend code. snip Before he does that does anybody have any objections? If so please let us know what and why. The last I heard, Brian was the only one *against* having pax-utils added to portage's RDEPEND list. ;) -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plugin framework

2005-11-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 14 November 2005 23:17, Marius Mauch wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:38:28 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The cache and elog plugin selection(s) come from user settings but emaint (and repoman whenever that happens (and possibly even emerge itself one day?)) needs

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

2005-11-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 04:00, Brian Harring wrote: *cough* that's that funky _p1 you're using

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

2005-11-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 15 November 2005 00:32, Marius Mauch wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:24:02 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:52, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 09:19:55AM +0900, Jason

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] going to need a 2.0.53-rc8

2005-11-11 Thread Jason Stubbs
to anybody's attention) in the time since I (and you) have been with the project. Lastly, 2.3.5.200* is/was hard masked. My preference would be to put the patch into trunk and release .54_pre1 within the next 24 hours. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [ferri...@lark.gentoo.org: r2267 - main/trunk/bin] (pre/post hooks)

2005-11-09 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Thursday 10 November 2005 05:08, Brian Harring wrote: If people are after having the commit mail dumped in their mbox, please contact either jstubbs, genone, or myself. Or if you're a dev, just add yourself. ;) -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] release versioning meaning

2005-11-08 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 17:29, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 11:54:11AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 06 November 2005 06:09, Brian Harring wrote: Yes we'll run aground of the dead 2.1 release (not incredibly happy about that), but I'd like to see if we can get

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] release versioning meaning

2005-11-08 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 08 November 2005 19:42, Brian Harring wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:39:01PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: If the changes are reviewed roughly in proportion to the number of hunks, we should be okay. At minimum, we should at least see how .54 turns out as there will be a few

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [Bug 44796] Per package environment variables

2005-11-04 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 04 November 2005 04:30, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 01:19:35 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: package.env would be a list of atom file [file ...] ... With a couple of small modifications to emerge to check FEATURES for buildpkg after

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] emerge -pv and masked dependencies

2005-11-04 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 05 November 2005 04:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 03:44:30AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Nobody else has shown a real example, why should I? ... I am focusing on what it could do. I stated all the options in my previous email. ... To restate: How

[gentoo-portage-dev] branches/2.0 reopened

2005-11-02 Thread Jason Stubbs
on with it. ;) Reminder: Anybody who commits to portage should be on this list and following/participating in what's going on. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [Bug 110386] Unable to remerge any package with -K (rc5 and rc6)

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 29 October 2005 15:38, Zac Medico wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 29 October 2005 13:20, Jason Stubbs wrote: I've adjusted the patch a bit to make all method signature changes into keyword arguments. I've also change the default tree to None and added a warning message

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 29 October 2005 19:56, Jason Stubbs wrote: All file descriptors opened by spawn() are now closed in the correct places. The code that closes all unnecessary descriptors via brute force is no longer required. I found that a file descriptor was being left open and passed around

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 30 October 2005 01:04, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 12:25:23AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: By the way, this method does not allow having a pipe open to a child process other than stdin, stdout or stderr. It does; the portage_exec that is in stable is the modified

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
Trying to alter patches that have been split up is a PITA. Missed a var rename in the patch just sent. :/ -- Jason Stubbs --- portage_exec.py.orig 2005-10-30 02:05:50.0 +0900 +++ portage_exec.py 2005-10-30 02:18:24.0 +0900 @@ -11,11 +11,8 @@ try: import resource

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [5/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 30 October 2005 02:17, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:40:41AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Even with the fd_pipes, the try/except block in there covers a bug that is hit every time it is entered. *cough* really doesn't surprise me. :) Looking through the 2.4

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [0/7] portage_exec cleanups (WAS: [Bug 104705] emerge doesn't print complete error message)

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 29 October 2005 19:34, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 23 October 2005 15:45, Jason Stubbs wrote: Commented on the bug due to reasoning behind this patch. Essentially, SIGTERM is sent to tee, a WNOHANG waitpid() is performed followed by SIGKILL if it hasn't exited. So if tee

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [0/7] portage_exec cleanups (WAS: [Bug 104705] emerge doesn't print complete error message)

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 30 October 2005 02:32, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 29 October 2005 19:34, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 23 October 2005 15:45, Jason Stubbs wrote: Commented on the bug due to reasoning behind this patch. Essentially, SIGTERM is sent to tee, a WNOHANG waitpid() is performed

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] decoupling .tbz'2 from bzip2

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
more mess. ;) -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] post_sync actions

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
method but I'm sure that there will be alternative opinions... -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] bug 104000 - package.masked message from overlay

2005-10-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
to me... All that's changed is that locations has become an instance var rather than a local var. What was the issue? -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [Bug 110386] Unable to remerge any package with -K (rc5 and rc6)

2005-10-28 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 28 October 2005 19:35, Zac Medico wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:50:02PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Wednesday 26 October 2005 23:56, Jason Stubbs wrote: I've attached a quickly thrown together patch for it, which works here, but we really need to get

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [Bug 110386] Unable to remerge any package with -K (rc5 and rc6)

2005-10-28 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 29 October 2005 13:20, Jason Stubbs wrote: I've adjusted the patch a bit to make all method signature changes into keyword arguments. I've also change the default tree to None and added a warning message to doebuild when None is passed and defaulting it to tree there. With the EAPI

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] elog-modules

2005-10-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead...

2005-10-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 21 October 2005 19:06, Marius Mauch wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: After thinking about it, incremental feature creep does seem like the best way to go at this late stage in 2.0's life. The problem is how to guage what is and what is not more trouble than worth. Perhaps adhering

[gentoo-portage-dev] [Bug 104705] emerge doesn't print complete error message

2005-10-24 Thread Jason Stubbs
into the if not timeout: block. -- Jason Stubbs Index: pym/portage_exec.py === --- pym/portage_exec.py (revision 2150) +++ pym/portage_exec.py (working copy) @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ # $Id: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/pym/portage_exec.py,v 1.13.2.4

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead...

2005-10-21 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Friday 21 October 2005 19:06, Marius Mauch wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: After thinking about it, incremental feature creep does seem like the best way to go at this late stage in 2.0's life. The problem is how to guage what is and what is not more trouble than worth. Perhaps adhering

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead...

2005-10-21 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Saturday 22 October 2005 10:08, Brian Harring wrote: On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 12:14:40AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Friday 21 October 2005 19:06, Marius Mauch wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: After thinking about it, incremental feature creep does seem like the best way to go

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] pre/post phase hooks for users

2005-10-20 Thread Jason Stubbs
side of things, will the hooks continue on into later versions? Specifically, with 3.0 supporting hooks on the python side will the bash hooks be deprecated? It seems reasonable that both can coexist nicely, so this is more just confirmation then anything. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] pre/post phase hooks for users

2005-10-20 Thread Jason Stubbs
trying to use those hooks won't be able to. In the meantime, it's a nice abuse of a user feature that makes java 1.4-1.5 stuff work, and works fine when 3.0 autodisables it. I don't get why it's needed by java ebuilds? Is it a fasttrack to getting unsandboxed root access? -- Jason Stubbs

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead...

2005-10-19 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Monday 17 October 2005 08:25, Zac Medico wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: It will likely be that some of the bugs marked against 108262 won't be fixed in time. Perhaps it would have been better to just open a metabug when the branch is opened and mark bugs against it as they are fixed. It's

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: Bumping portage to top of dependancy list (bug 48531)

2005-10-18 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 16:49, Zac Medico wrote: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48531 This simple patch automatically bumps portage to the top of the merge list. I've always wanted this feature and it is a dependency of bug 108262. Feedback please. :) No good. ;) What if

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: Bumping portage to top of dependancy list (bug 48531)

2005-10-18 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 18 October 2005 19:52, Marius Mauch wrote: On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 19:32:26 +0900 Jason Stubbs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tuesday 18 October 2005 16:49, Zac Medico wrote: http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=48531 This simple patch automatically bumps portage to the top

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead...

2005-10-16 Thread Jason Stubbs
15 October 2005 13:59, Brian Harring wrote: On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 01:45:42PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: So, there's pretty much three ways we can go: 1) Backport refactorings+features and release. 2) Fix more bugs, backport refactorings+features and release. 3) Fix more bugs, release

[gentoo-portage-dev] The road ahead...

2005-10-14 Thread Jason Stubbs
much work, so I'd like to go with 2) or 3). I was thinking to go with 3) with the backported stuff being named 2.1.0, which is how we arrived at this thread. Anyway, flame-war time. :D -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions about CVS locations and GID...

2005-10-06 Thread Jason Stubbs
and that the creative process should follow a different path (=plan everything first). -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Use vdb categories when calling vartree.dep_match()

2005-10-03 Thread Jason Stubbs
This (and the last patch both) relates to bug 107982. Essentially, an installed package has a category that no longer exists in $PORTDIR's categories file. Hence, not specifying the category on the command line won't find the package. This patch fixes that. Note, under my own rules this one

[gentoo-portage-dev] [CLEANUP] ebuild

2005-10-03 Thread Jason Stubbs
I've attached the whole file because the patch was pretty much nonsensical. * Cleaned up initialization * Check that the ebuild specified is the ebuild that portage will use and adjust paths if it isn't. * Alter clean behavior when FEATURES=noauto to bring it into line with Brian's changes to

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] EAPI cleanups and fixes

2005-10-03 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Tuesday 04 October 2005 03:30, Brian Harring wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 01:06:35AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Don't like the size of this patch, but it's quite repetitive so... Wouldn't worry on the repetitive, it's repetitive due to the fact the *dbapi classes don't (ab|)use

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Improved user information and communication

2005-10-01 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Sunday 02 October 2005 01:08, Daniel Stiefelmaier wrote: On Saturday 01 October 2005 14:17, Jason Stubbs wrote: This should go to [EMAIL PROTECTED] as ebuild developers are the ones that decide what USE flags are available and how they're documented. Of course they decide what flags

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Improved user information and communication

2005-09-30 Thread Jason Stubbs
correct and what isn't. just some ideas, maybe needing some development, i hope you find them useful. :) Ideas are a dime, a dozen. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Friendly up depclean a bit

2005-09-29 Thread Jason Stubbs
Get's rid of all the yelling from the depclean message and shortens it a bit too. Also got rid of the compulsory long delay (CLEAN_DELAY still takes affect on non-pretend run). Lastly, made the new sanity checks a long delay rather than immediately dieing - what if one wanted to take an

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Ignore system packages that are in package.provided

2005-09-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
Removes any atoms that are satisfied by package.provided in emerge's getlist() function. diff -uNr 2.0/bin/emerge 2.0-patched/bin/emerge --- 2.0/bin/emerge 2005-09-27 13:16:09.0 +0900 +++ 2.0-patched/bin/emerge 2005-09-27 15:00:23.0 +0900 @@ -861,6 +861,16 @@ continue

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Extra info about installed packages feature

2005-09-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
This patch is by swegener. It allows one to specify atoms after `emerge info` that will be matched to installed packages. Any installed packages found that have settings differing to the current settings will have those settings printed out along with the global info. diff -u -r1.345.2.37

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] More info when dependencies can't be satisfied

2005-09-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
This patch has two parts. The first adds information to show what package brought in the offending atom. The second part clarifies that the problem with ebuild foo is talking about the world/system/cli package rather than the actual package requiring the unsatisfiable atom. diff -u -r1.345.2.37

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Ignore blockers when fetching and using --ask

2005-09-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
Subject says it all... diff -uNr 2.0/bin/emerge 2.0-patched/bin/emerge --- 2.0/bin/emerge 2005-09-27 13:16:09.0 +0900 +++ 2.0-patched/bin/emerge 2005-09-27 15:18:53.0 +0900 @@ -3173,7 +3173,7 @@ if x[3]!=nomerge: mergecount+=1 #check for blocking dependencies -

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Ignore blockers when fetching and using --ask

2005-09-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
While not harmful, there was one issue with the previous patch; the parent of the blocking package would be fetched as well. This would usually mean that one of the packages being merged would be fetched twice. This patch fixes that. diff -uNr 2.0/bin/emerge 2.0-patched/bin/emerge ---

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Kill the smileys!

2005-09-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
Kill 'em all! (Original patch by solar) diff -uNr 2.0/pym/portage.py 2.0-patched/pym/portage.py --- 2.0/pym/portage.py 2005-09-26 11:48:15.0 +0900 +++ 2.0-patched/pym/portage.py 2005-09-27 16:06:21.0 +0900 @@ -1864,7 +1864,7 @@ fetched=0 else: for x_key

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Kill the smileys!

2005-09-27 Thread Jason Stubbs
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 12:15, Marius Mauch wrote: Jason Stubbs wrote: Kill 'em all! (Original patch by solar) Hmm, I actually liked them. Even now that FEATURES=strict is default and every package results in a screenful of everything's alright, mate ;-) ? -- gentoo-portage-dev

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH]es -- several of 'em

2005-09-26 Thread Jason Stubbs
change. ignore-pprovided-system-packages.patch Removes anything in system that is satisfied by package.provided. -- Jason Stubbs diff -u -r1.201.2.40 ebuild.sh --- bin/ebuild.sh 9 Aug 2005 11:25:44 - 1.201.2.40 +++ bin/ebuild.sh 11 Aug 2005 14:26:16 - @@ -1017,12 +1017,24 @@ for i

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] ignore files within categories in portdbapi.cp_all()

2005-09-26 Thread Jason Stubbs
cp_all() currently includes category metadata.xml and any other files that happen to be there. This patch limits cp_all() to directories. diff -u -r1.524.2.76 portage.py --- pym/portage.py 29 May 2005 12:40:08 - 1.524.2.76 +++ pym/portage.py 11 Aug 2005 14:26:18 - @@ -5478,7 +5488,8 @@

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] resend of 99616 overridable lchown/lchgrp

2005-09-26 Thread Jason Stubbs
Getting rid of the magic constants. diff -uNr 2.0/bin/ebuild.sh 2.0-patched/bin/ebuild.sh --- 2.0/bin/ebuild.sh 2005-09-26 11:48:16.0 +0900 +++ 2.0-patched/bin/ebuild.sh 2005-09-27 13:37:33.0 +0900 @@ -83,6 +83,15 @@ export SANDBOX_PREDICT=$SANDBOX_PREDICT:$1 } +lchown() +{ +

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] ignore files within categories in portdbapi.cp_all()

2005-09-26 Thread Jason Stubbs
Kill off the extra stat call by moving the filtering into listdir. (Brian wrote the bulk of this patch.) diff -uNr 2.0/pym/portage.py 2.0-patched/pym/portage.py --- 2.0/pym/portage.py 2005-09-26 11:48:15.0 +0900 +++ 2.0-patched/pym/portage.py 2005-09-27 13:52:49.0 +0900 @@ -272,7

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Typo in PORT_LOGDIR validity check

2005-09-26 Thread Jason Stubbs
Changes ValueError into OSError so that the except: block can do it's thing. diff -u -r1.524.2.76 portage.py --- pym/portage.py 29 May 2005 12:40:08 - 1.524.2.76 +++ pym/portage.py 11 Aug 2005 14:26:18 - @@ -2595,7 +2597,7 @@ mysettings[LOG_PF]=mysettings[PF]

  1   2   >