Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] default postsync
Zac Medico schrieb: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ned Ludd wrote: How do you think we should handle it? Should we install a post_sync in a postinst phase outside of portage's handling if and only if not post_sync already exists? Should we change it to handled a postsync.d by default? Should we do both? I'm open as heck but would like to start to finalize then document it's behavior. I feel it could be one of the next untapped really useful features of portage. glsa-checking, news handling, search db updating, and stuff etc.. Given the existing support for /etc/portage/bin/post_sync, the user has the freedom to do anything they want. If a program needs to make use of the post_sync trigger, it's documentation can simply state that a certain command needs the be run and the user can add that command to their post_sync script. Is that not easy and flexible enough? Well, it requires user intervention, pretty much the same argument as for any other foo.d change in any package (I don't have a personal preference here, though using bashrc for this definitely isn't a good idea). Marius -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] default postsync
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ned Ludd wrote: > How do you think we should handle it? > Should we install a post_sync in a postinst phase outside of portage's > handling if and only if not post_sync already exists? > Should we change it to handled a postsync.d by default? > Should we do both? I'm open as heck but would like to start to > finalize then document it's behavior. I feel it could be one of the > next untapped really useful features of portage. glsa-checking, news > handling, search db updating, and stuff etc.. Given the existing support for /etc/portage/bin/post_sync, the user has the freedom to do anything they want. If a program needs to make use of the post_sync trigger, it's documentation can simply state that a certain command needs the be run and the user can add that command to their post_sync script. Is that not easy and flexible enough? Zac -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEWsnT/ejvha5XGaMRAmOsAKDTaCc4GA16hO4o24OKxOqkTFhbLgCguQEA cxh1Y3+c/o4CGWcnc+Jh8zY= =7K0g -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] default postsync
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 22:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > #!/bin/sh
> > # Copyright 2006 Gentoo Foundation
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> > # $Header: $
> >
> > if [ -d /etc/portage/postsync.d/ ]; then
> > for f in /etc/portage/postsync.d/* ; do
> > if [ -x ${f} ] ; then
> > ${f}
> > fi
> > done
> > else
> > :
> > fi
> > ##
> >
> > How do you think we should handle it?
>
> I'd prefer this way:
>
>
> #!/bin/sh
> # Copyright 2006 Gentoo Foundation
> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> # $Header: $
>
> if [ -f /etc/portage/bashrc ]; then
> source /etc/portage/bashrc
> [ "$(type -t post_sync)" == "function" ] && post_sync
> fi
>
>
> i.e. use bashrc for this. We handle the existing hooks through bashrc,
> and postsync hooks aren't anything different, so they should be handled
> through the same logic. I think it's just more intuitive than a
> postsync.d/ subdirectory.
The post_sync action already exists in both 2.0 and 2.1
This mail is about extending it before it becomes wide spread to
include more than 1 action.
I'm thinking bashrc is not really the right place for this cuz there is
no $EBUILD_PHASE and everything todo with bashrc to date has always
been fed a PHASE where things like $PN / $PV / $D / $EBUILD etc are set.
post sync actions are completely separate from ebuilds on the
individual level.
Honestly I'm thinking more on the lines of this is best suited for
4-5 lines of python.
-peace.
> --
> Kind Regards,
>
> Simon Stelling
> Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
--
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] default postsync
Ned Ludd wrote:
#!/bin/sh
# Copyright 2006 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
if [ -d /etc/portage/postsync.d/ ]; then
for f in /etc/portage/postsync.d/* ; do
if [ -x ${f} ] ; then
${f}
fi
done
else
:
fi
##
How do you think we should handle it?
I'd prefer this way:
#!/bin/sh
# Copyright 2006 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
if [ -f /etc/portage/bashrc ]; then
source /etc/portage/bashrc
[ "$(type -t post_sync)" == "function" ] && post_sync
fi
i.e. use bashrc for this. We handle the existing hooks through bashrc,
and postsync hooks aren't anything different, so they should be handled
through the same logic. I think it's just more intuitive than a
postsync.d/ subdirectory.
--
Kind Regards,
Simon Stelling
Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-portage-dev] default postsync
Jason and myself had talked about briefly but not in any depth about
post sync actions. Quickly after the basic idea was accepted it
started to become clear that a set of default triggered may be
desired.
So I was thinking like if portage installed something like the
following or if we changed the behavior now in emerge.py before the
existing become to widely adopted to do more or less the same thing
that this bash script does.
#!/bin/sh
# Copyright 2006 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
if [ -d /etc/portage/postsync.d/ ]; then
for f in /etc/portage/postsync.d/* ; do
if [ -x ${f} ] ; then
${f}
fi
done
else
:
fi
##
How do you think we should handle it?
Should we install a post_sync in a postinst phase outside of portage's
handling if and only if not post_sync already exists?
Should we change it to handled a postsync.d by default?
Should we do both? I'm open as heck but would like to start to
finalize then document it's behavior. I feel it could be one of the
next untapped really useful features of portage. glsa-checking, news
handling, search db updating, and stuff etc..
--
Ned Ludd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Gentoo Linux
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
