Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Display of keyword in emerge : code proposal
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:47:40 +0100 jb benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Marius Mauch wrote: > > >- Doesn't work with binpkgs (though that's probably also a problem in > >getmaskingstatus() itself) > >- there is more than keyword and p.mask for masking (profiles) > >- the function name is misleading (you're not checking the actual > >masking status) > >- you don't check for non-~arch and package.mask'ed packages > >- you don't check for non-$ARCH ACCEPT_KEYWORDS/package.keywords > >entries > >- other semantic issues I' not going to repeat > >- completely useless without docs. > > > > > > > If this can help, i'll respond to some of your question : > My aims is very different to the one of getmaskingstatus(). Not really, you basically just want to ignore parts of the local config, that's all. > I don't have to check everywere for the status : > The package which status I'm searching were already checked by > getmaskingstatus(). > This is very important. Wrong. getmaskingstatus() doesn't decide if a package is masked (gvivsible() does that), it only checks for possible reasons. And if this should be considered for inclusion you *have* to check for all possible masks (though with profiles this gets tricky). > The only 2 thinks I implemented was to search : > > if the package beeing checked is an unstable version, > which can be done only by looking at the supported keywords in the > ebuild. Again wrong. Example: - ebuild foo has KEYWORDS="~x86" - my system has ARCH="amd64" - in package.keywords I have a line "foo ~x86" So while this package isn't even marked as "testing" for my arch your patch would treat it as "stable" (at least that's how I would interpret the output). This example is rather common. > if the package beeing checked is a masked version. > I only need to check is the package was masked in packages.mask, > don't mind the reason for which it's now unmasked. I didn't say anything about checking why it's unmasked, maybe you misunderstood the following comment: "you don't check for non-~arch and package.mask'ed packages" What I mean is when a package is marked stable but in package.mask, your patch simply ignores that (instead of adding a "M" status). > If you thinks this can be usefull, I can made the corection needed. > If you think this is just a bunch of trash, just tell me to forget, > but i'll miss this feature. Well, not trash, but it has a ton of semantic issues (likely more than just the few I posted above) to resolve first making this much more complicated than you probably think. That's probably not important for you or 90% of all users, but if we add such a feature it has to work for at least 98% of all users (ideally of course for 100%). Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Display of keyword in emerge : code proposal
On Tue, 2005-22-11 at 21:47 +0100, jb benoit wrote: > If you thinks this can be usefull, I can made the corection needed. > If you think this is just a bunch of trash, just tell me to forget, but > i'll miss this feature. > > Jb We do something very similar in porthole now. It is very usefull and we like it. I think it would be a good addition to the emerge-vp output. Our display goes farther and more detailed showing individual ebuild keyword status. Whether it is stable, keyword masked or hard masked. We even add a tooltip with the reason it is hard masked. After all how many people can remember which packages they have in /etc/portage/package.keywords . Much like the USE flag status is checked, the keyword status can also be checked. -- Brian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Display of keyword in emerge : code proposal
Marius Mauch wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:13:13 +0100
jb benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
$ diff -Naur portage.py.sav portage.py
--- portage.py.sav 2005-11-17 15:32:20.0 +0100
+++ portage.py 2005-11-17 15:15:24.0 +0100
@@ -3866,6 +3866,42 @@
pmaskfile.close()
return None
+def getprintablemaskingstatus(mycpv):
+
+ #checking
+ global portdb
+ mysplit = catpkgsplit(mycpv)
+ if not mysplit:
+ raise ValueError("invalid CPV: %s" % mycpv)
+ if not portdb.cpv_exists(mycpv):
+ raise KeyError("CPV %s does not exist" % mycpv)
+ mycp=mysplit[0]+"/"+mysplit[1]
+
+ #gathering data
+ mygroups = portdb.aux_get(mycpv, ["KEYWORDS"])[0].split()
+ myarch = settings["ARCH"]
+ maskdict=settings.pmaskdict
+
+ rValue=[]
+ test=0
+
+ # keyword chercking
+ for gp in mygroups:
+ if gp=="~"+myarch:
+ kmask="~"+myarch
+ rValue.append(kmask)
+ test = 1
+
+ # package.mask checking
+if test == 1:
+ if maskdict.has_key(mycp):
+ for x in maskdict[mycp]:
+ if mycpv in
portdb.xmatch("match-all", x):
+ rValue.append("~M")
+
+ return rValue
+
+
def getmaskingstatus(mycpv):
global portdb
mysplit = catpkgsplit(mycpv)
- Doesn't work with binpkgs (though that's probably also a problem in
getmaskingstatus() itself)
- there is more than keyword and p.mask for masking (profiles)
- the function name is misleading (you're not checking the actual
masking status)
- you don't check for non-~arch and package.mask'ed packages
- you don't check for non-$ARCH ACCEPT_KEYWORDS/package.keywords entries
- other semantic issues I' not going to repeat
- completely useless without docs.
If this can help, i'll respond to some of your question :
My aims is very different to the one of getmaskingstatus().
I don't have to check everywere for the status :
The package which status I'm searching were already checked by
getmaskingstatus().
This is very important.
The only 2 thinks I implemented was to search :
if the package beeing checked is an unstable version,
which can be done only by looking at the supported keywords in the ebuild.
if the package beeing checked is a masked version.
I only need to check is the package was masked in packages.mask,
don't mind the reason for which it's now unmasked.
If you thinks this can be usefull, I can made the corection needed.
If you think this is just a bunch of trash, just tell me to forget, but
i'll miss this feature.
Jb
We didn't say "it's complicated" for no reason ;)
Marius
PS: But thanks anyway, looking at getmaskingstatus() reminds me of
removing the stupid -* message.
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Display of keyword in emerge : code proposal
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:13:13 +0100
jb benoit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ diff -Naur portage.py.sav portage.py
> --- portage.py.sav 2005-11-17 15:32:20.0 +0100
> +++ portage.py 2005-11-17 15:15:24.0 +0100
> @@ -3866,6 +3866,42 @@
> pmaskfile.close()
> return None
>
> +def getprintablemaskingstatus(mycpv):
> +
> + #checking
> + global portdb
> + mysplit = catpkgsplit(mycpv)
> + if not mysplit:
> + raise ValueError("invalid CPV: %s" % mycpv)
> + if not portdb.cpv_exists(mycpv):
> + raise KeyError("CPV %s does not exist" % mycpv)
> + mycp=mysplit[0]+"/"+mysplit[1]
> +
> + #gathering data
> + mygroups = portdb.aux_get(mycpv, ["KEYWORDS"])[0].split()
> + myarch = settings["ARCH"]
> + maskdict=settings.pmaskdict
> +
> + rValue=[]
> + test=0
> +
> + # keyword chercking
> + for gp in mygroups:
> + if gp=="~"+myarch:
> + kmask="~"+myarch
> + rValue.append(kmask)
> + test = 1
> +
> + # package.mask checking
> +if test == 1:
> + if maskdict.has_key(mycp):
> + for x in maskdict[mycp]:
> + if mycpv in
> portdb.xmatch("match-all", x):
> + rValue.append("~M")
> +
> + return rValue
> +
> +
> def getmaskingstatus(mycpv):
> global portdb
> mysplit = catpkgsplit(mycpv)
- Doesn't work with binpkgs (though that's probably also a problem in
getmaskingstatus() itself)
- there is more than keyword and p.mask for masking (profiles)
- the function name is misleading (you're not checking the actual
masking status)
- you don't check for non-~arch and package.mask'ed packages
- you don't check for non-$ARCH ACCEPT_KEYWORDS/package.keywords entries
- other semantic issues I' not going to repeat
- completely useless without docs.
We didn't say "it's complicated" for no reason ;)
Marius
PS: But thanks anyway, looking at getmaskingstatus() reminds me of
removing the stupid -* message.
--
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-portage-dev] Display of keyword in emerge : code proposal
Hello,
I'm a newcomer here.
The subject deal here was originaly posted here :
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-403287.html
I have always wanted to display the keywords
involved when you emerge a package.
Per exemple, i want to know if the xchat-2.6.0 i'll emerge is a stable
version, an unstable or a hard-masked one.
I have already posted a feature request, but people said it was too
difficult.
So I decided to make it work myself.
Here is the output of the current portage :
Code:
#emerge portage initng -pv
These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.0_alpha20050718 [2.0.51.22-r3]
-build 456 kB
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/initng-0.4.2 [0.4.0] 0 kB [1]
Total size of downloads: 456 kB
Portage overlays:
[1] /usr/local/portage
My version :
Code:
#./emerge initng portage -pv
These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/initng-0.4.2 [0.4.0] 0 kB [1] ~x86
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/portage-2.1.0_alpha20050718 [2.0.51.22-r3]
-build 456 kB ~x86 ~M
Total size of downloads: 456 kB
Portage overlays:
[1] /usr/local/portage
So you know that you are going to emerge a development version, and
another which is a hard masked one.
My code take near 30 lines, so i think it can be easely
cheked.
So here is the code :
for /usr/lib/portage/pym/portage.py
Code:
$ diff -Naur portage.py.sav portage.py
--- portage.py.sav 2005-11-17 15:32:20.0 +0100
+++ portage.py 2005-11-17 15:15:24.0 +0100
@@ -3866,6 +3866,42 @@
pmaskfile.close()
return None
+def getprintablemaskingstatus(mycpv):
+
+ #checking
+ global portdb
+ mysplit = catpkgsplit(mycpv)
+ if not mysplit:
+ raise ValueError("invalid CPV: %s" % mycpv)
+ if not portdb.cpv_exists(mycpv):
+ raise KeyError("CPV %s does not exist" % mycpv)
+ mycp=mysplit[0]+"/"+mysplit[1]
+
+ #gathering data
+ mygroups = portdb.aux_get(mycpv, ["KEYWORDS"])[0].split()
+ myarch = settings["ARCH"]
+ maskdict=settings.pmaskdict
+
+ rValue=[]
+ test=0
+
+ # keyword chercking
+ for gp in mygroups:
+ if gp=="~"+myarch:
+ kmask="~"+myarch
+ rValue.append(kmask)
+ test = 1
+
+ # package.mask checking
+ if test == 1:
+ if maskdict.has_key(mycp):
+ for x in maskdict[mycp]:
+ if mycpv in portdb.xmatch("match-all",
x):
+ rValue.append("~M")
+
+ return rValue
+
+
def getmaskingstatus(mycpv):
global portdb
mysplit = catpkgsplit(mycpv)
for /usr/bin/emerge :
Code:
$ diff -Naur /usr/bin/emerge emerge
--- /usr/bin/emerge 2005-11-17 15:16:31.0 +0100
+++ emerge 2005-11-17 15:11:48.0 +0100
@@ -1625,7 +1625,14 @@
display_overlays=True
else:
verboseadd += "[No
ebuild?]"
-
+
+ # keywords display
+ status =
portage.getprintablemaskingstatus(x[2])
+ if status:
+ for keywords in status:
+
verboseadd+=teal(keywords+" ")
+
+
xs=portage.pkgsplit(x[2])
if xs[2]=="r0":
xs[2]=""
I'm working with : sys-apps/portage-2.0.51.22-r3
Nota: the display of the arch is only available when emerge is called
with the -v option
I'll be pleased to hear your though about, and to know if this can be
merged in portage.
Thanxs
