https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34964
I think this patches could be candidate for the new 2.0.54 branch.
BUILD_PKGS is a new configuration variable which allows choosing
what packages should be built as .tbz2 binaries.
It is a space delimited list of rules, which can be of different
kind
This is the code:
* pym/portage_const.py: add BUILD_PKGS to the incremental variables
* pym/portage.py, in the config class, adds:
- a getprovides() method to get the list of virtuals a pkg
provides. Code is from setinst(), and setinst() now calls
this method.
- an issytem()
This patch adds documentation for BUILD_PKGS in cnf/make.conf*
files.
--
TGL.
diff -uNr cnf.orig/make.conf cnf/make.conf
--- cnf.orig/make.conf 2005-10-25 13:08:19.770107152 +0200
+++ cnf/make.conf 2005-10-25 13:54:12.281661792 +0200
@@ -256,8 +256,7 @@
# 'autoaddcvs' causes portage to automat
And finally this one is for man/make.conf.5.
--
TGL.
--- man.orig/make.conf.5 2005-10-25 17:42:25.096037600 +0200
+++ man/make.conf.5 2005-10-25 18:16:19.358782656 +0200
@@ -38,6 +38,45 @@
.br
Defaults to yes.
.TP
+\fBBUILD_PKGS\fR = \fI[space delimited list of rules]\fR
+Lists the packages f
attached is a patch against bin/emerge r2255 of the 2.0 branch which
removes some hard coded or "magic" numbers. pretty basic stuff.
-jason pepas
Index: 2.0-svn-r2255/bin/emerge
===
--- 2.0-svn-r2255/bin/emerge(revision 2255)
++
On Friday 04 November 2005 00:17, Jason Pepas wrote:
> attached is a patch against bin/emerge r2255 of the 2.0 branch which
> removes some hard coded or "magic" numbers. pretty basic stuff.
InSvn :)
--
Jason Stubbs
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
same thing but for pym/portage.py.
-jason pepas
Index: 2.0-svn-r2255/pym/portage.py
===
--- 2.0-svn-r2255/pym/portage.py(revision 2255)
+++ 2.0-svn-r2255/pym/portage.py(working copy)
@@ -5894,7 +5894,8 @@
> - myebuild=tmploc+"/"+mypkg+"/inf/"+os.path.basename(mytbz2)[:-4]+"ebuild"
> + myebuild=tmploc+"/"+mypkg+"/inf/"+mypkg+".ebuild"
You might take a quick glance at this last line. I am pretty sure that
will always be correct, but we could also state it like this:
myebuild=tmploc+"/"+mypk
On Monday 31 October 2005 02:14, Brian Harring wrote:
+++ pym/cache/util.py (revision 0)
+ def exception(self, key, *arg): print "exec",key,arg
Should "exec" be "exec"?
+++ pym/cache/mappings.py (revision 0)
+ def __init__(self, pull_items, initial_items=[]):
...
+
+++ bin/emerge (working copy)
+ cm =
portage.settings.load_best_module("portdbapi.metadbmodule")(myportdir,
"metadata/cache",
+ filter(lambda x: not x.startswith("UNUSED_0"),
portage.auxdbkeys))
Anything wrong with getting rid of UNUSED_0 from auxdbkeys now
pclouds came up with an interesting patch to support per package environment
variables. I've updated it a little but it still needs some more work.
Essentially package.env would be a list of " [ ...]" where
file is then read using getconfig() from /etc/portage/env/.
Using such an approach woul
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 12:43:33AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Monday 31 October 2005 02:14, Brian Harring wrote:
>
> +++ pym/cache/util.py (revision 0)
> + def exception(self, key, *arg): print "exec",key,arg
>
> Should "exec" be "exec"?
print "key '%s' caught exception '%s'" % key, arg
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 01:01:19AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> +++ bin/emerge(working copy)
> + cm =
> portage.settings.load_best_module("portdbapi.metadbmodule")(myportdir,
> "metadata/cache",
> + filter(lambda x: not x.startswith("UNUSED_0"),
> portage
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 01:19:35 +0900
Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> package.env would be a list of " [ ...]"
...
> With a couple of small modifications to emerge to check FEATURES
> for "buildpkg" after the call to setcpv() is done rather than
> doing it once globally, this would also cov
On Thu, Nov 03, 2005 at 08:30:26PM +0100, 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 " [ ...]"
> ...
> > With a couple of small modifications to emerge to check FEATURES
> > for "buildpkg" a
On Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:45:16 -0600
Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Offhand, why isn't this a bashrc trick?
>From my understanding, the point of Jason's proposal was to go
further than usual bashrc tricks, and to also affect python-space
variables (replace package.*, do the per-package b
First, great work on all the patches and improvements I've been seeing.
I know there is somewhat of a feature freeze while you are catching up,
but. If anyone is working on this section of code, could you keep in
mind the following feature request.
emerge -pv
would actually continue listing (
17 matches
Mail list logo
