Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] repoman commit: Support --bug (-b) and --closes (-c) for git footer

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Support two new options: --bug (-b) and --closes (-c) to add a plain > 'Bug' reference and a 'Closes' footer for a GitHub pull request. Both > options can be specified multiple times, resulting in multiple footer > tags being written. > > The

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] repoman commit: Support --bug (-b) and --closes (-c) for git footer

On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 12:15 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > On czw, 2017-08-03 at 11:18 -0400, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > Support two new options: --bug (-b) and --closes (-c) to add a plain > > > 'Bug&

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] repoman commit: Support --bug (-b) and --closes (-c) for git footer

On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Support two new options: --bug (-b) and --closes (-c) to add a plain > 'Bug' reference and a 'Closes' footer for a GitHub pull request. Both > options can be specified multiple times, resulting in multiple footer > tags being written. > > The

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] ebuild.sh: Completely ban external commands in global scope

Why PATH=/dev/null vs export PATH="" On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 3:36 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 31 sierpnia 2017 22:45:42 CEST, "Michał Górny" > napisał(a): > >Set PATH to /dev/null when sourcing the ebuild for dependency > >resolution > >in order to prevent shell from finding external commands

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] ebuild.sh: Completely ban external commands in global scope

Must be old age setting in :( Thanks, -A On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu pią, 08.09.2017 o godzinie 14∶48 -0400, użytkownik Alec Warner > napisał: > > Why PATH=/dev/null vs export PATH="" > > + # note: we can't use empty bec

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] dep_check: use DNF to optimize overlapping virtual || deps (bug 632026)

On Sun, Nov 12, 2017 at 6:48 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > Deps like these: > > || ( foo bar ) || ( bar baz ) > > Translate to disjunctive normal form (DNF): > > || ( ( foo bar ) ( foo baz ) ( bar bar ) ( bar baz ) ) > > Using DNF, if none of the packages are currently installed, > then the ( bar b

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] bin/doins.py: implement install -p option (bug 642632)

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/642632 > --- > [PATCH v2] fix to copy atime, and split out _set_timestamps function > > bin/doins.py| 28 +--- > pym/portage/tests/bin/test_doins.py | 6 -- > 2

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] install-qa-check: Do not install empty directories

Please link to documentation on keepdir (e.g. https://devmanual.gentoo.org/function-reference/install-functions/index.html) in the helper? I'm not sure there is better keepdir document? Also looking at https://devmanual.gentoo.org/eclass-reference/ebuild/ It says "keepdir functions the same as d

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] dep_zapdeps: install new package, allow upgrade (bug 643974)

The code lgtm. Slightly unsure if we need an entirely new test, as opposed to just generalizing the test cases (like you did the code). But either way is probably fine. -A On Tue, Jan 9, 2018 at 2:55 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > Prefer to install a new package in order to allow upgrade of an > inst

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] misc: Distribute a repo.postsync.d hook to run gemato verification

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Include a repo.postsync.d hook to verify the rsync checkout using > gemato. Given that not all people will want to have it enabled > unconditionally, no setup.py rules are included -- instead, the file > would be installed conditionally by t

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] misc: Distribute a repo.postsync.d hook to run gemato verification

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:25 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu wto, 16.01.2018 o godzinie 11∶32 -0800, użytkownik Zac Medico > napisał: > > On 01/16/2018 10:39 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > W dniu wto, 16.01.2018 o godzinie 12∶44 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner > > >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] ebuild: allow RESTRICT=network-sandbox in ebuilds

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 16 Jan 2018 23:32, Mike Gilbert wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > Some ebuilds are a bit hard to fix their use of the network in src > > > phases, so allow them to disable things. This allows us to

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] dep_zapdeps: exclude virtuals from new_slot_count (bug 645190)

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > Fix new_slot_count to exclude virtual packages, since they are considered > to have zero-cost. This solves an issue where the catalyst stage1 build > would unexpectedly pull in static-dev to satisfy virtual/dev-manager, > but eudev is the prefe

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] dep_zapdeps: exclude virtuals from new_slot_count (bug 645190)

On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:41 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/20/2018 04:23 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 7:10 PM, Zac Medico > <mailto:zmed...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > > > > diff --git a/pym/portage/dep/dep_check.py > b/pym/portage/dep/

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] dep_zapdeps: fix virtual/rust handling (bug 645416)

I'm starting to be a bit sad about this for a couple of reasons. 1) dep_zapdeps is pretty big at this point, and every tweak for || () just grows it. Do we have any idea: a) When dep_zapdeps will be 'done'? b) Plans for splitting it into more manageable pieces? 2) In general I worry that the l

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 8/8] eshowkw: Always group Prefix keywords last

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Always group all Prefix keywords after other types of keywords. This > not only ensures that fbsd sorts first but more importantly stabilizes > the LHS output between regular and -P variant -- that is, -P always adds > additional keywords at

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plan for initial integration of gemato with portage

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > Since the initial review of my patch lost focus, and lacked sufficient > context, here's the plan that I'd like to follow in order to initially > integrate gemato with portage and give our users secure checkouts by > default

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plan for initial integration of gemato with portage

On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu śro, 24.01.2018 o godzinie 12∶54 -0500, użytkownik Alec Warner > napisał: > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > Hi, everyone. > > > > > > Since the init

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge: add --changed-deps-report option (bug 645780)

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > The --dynamic-deps=n default causes confusion for users that are > accustomed to dynamic deps, therefore add a --changed-deps-report > option that is enabled by default (if --usepkgonly is not enabled). > > The --quiet option will suppress the

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge: add --changed-deps-report option (bug 645780)

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/28/2018 09:35 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 9:51 AM, Zac Medico > <mailto:zmed...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > > > > The --dynamic-deps=n default causes confu

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] emerge: add --changed-deps-report option (bug 645780)

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 8:10 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 01/28/2018 04:17 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > Since ::gentoo is the only repository governed by the PMS, can't we make > > repoman do this? The problem with requiring "repoman --force" for an > > in-place dependency change is that repoman

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] filter-bash-environment.py: use buffered input, raw bytes (bug 647654)

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > Use sys.stdin.buffer instead of sys.stdin.buffer.raw, for buffered input. > Also use raw bytes instead of unicode strings, in order to avoid making > assumptions about character encodings, and also to avoid overhead from > unicode decoding/enco

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] filter-bash-environment.py: use buffered input, raw bytes (bug 647654)

On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 12:49 AM, Zac Medico wrote: > Use sys.stdin.buffer instead of sys.stdin.buffer.raw, for buffered input. > Also use raw bytes instead of unicode strings, in order to avoid making > assumptions about character encodings, and also to avoid overhead from > unicode decoding/enc

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Add iter_completed convenience function (bug 648790)

On Sun, Feb 25, 2018 at 8:50 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > The iter_completed function is similar to asyncio.as_completed, but > takes an iterator of futures as input, and includes support for > max_jobs and max_load parameters. The default values for max_jobs > and max_load correspond to multiprocessi

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/2] portdbapi: add async_aux_get method (bug 648790)

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 1:09 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > On 02/26/2018 04:29 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > W dniu nie, 25.02.2018 o godzinie 17∶50 -0800, użytkownik Zac Medico > > napisał: > >> Add async_aux_get method that returns a Future and otherwise > >> behaves identically to aux_get. Use async_a

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/3] portage.dbapi.vartree: Support exclusions in INSTALL_MASK

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 3:22 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > Allow INSTALL_MASK patterns to start with '-' to indicate that > a specific match is to be excluded from being masked. In this case, > the last matching pattern determines whether the file is actually > filtered out or kept. > --- > pym/port

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/4] Add ForkExecutor (bug 649588)

lgtm. On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > This is useful for asynchronous operations that we might > need to cancel if they take too long, since (concurrent. > futures.ProcessPoolExecutor tasks are not cancellable). > This ability to cancel tasks makes this executor useful > as

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 3/4] Add retry decorator (API inspired by tenacity)

also lgtm. On Sat, Mar 31, 2018 at 10:46 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > This decorator will be useful for retrying asynchronous > operations, such as gpg key refresh (bug 649276). The > API is inspired by tenacity, but is simpler. Only > asynchronous functions (like @asyncio.coroutine functions) > are

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] rsync: add key refresh retry (bug 649276)

On Sun, Apr 1, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu nie, 01.04.2018 o godzinie 08∶59 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico > napisał: > > On 04/01/2018 03:57 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > W dniu sob, 31.03.2018 o godzinie 19∶46 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico > > > napisał: > > > > Since key refresh

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] global_event_loop: use asyncio event loop (bug 654390)

lgtm. -A On Tue, May 8, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Mon, 7 May 2018 03:18:32 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > > > + # This attribute it used by _wrap_loop to detect if > > the > > typo, s/it/is > > this asynio stuff is mostly beyond my familiarity... but all looks ok, >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Objections to renaming pym directory to lib?

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:28:05 -0700 > Zac Medico wrote: > > > Are there any objections to renaming the pym directory to lib [1]? > > Note that the git log --follow option makes this kind of rename > > fairly painless. > > > > [1] https://gith

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Objections to renaming pym directory to lib?

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 4:36 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > W dniu śro, 18.07.2018 o godzinie 13∶51 -0400, użytkownik Alec Warner > napisał: > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 2:54 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > > > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 13:28:05 -0700 > > > Zac Medico

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 8:09 AM Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > The Gentoo's tbz2/xpak package format is quite old. We've made a few > incompatible changes in the past (most notably, allowing non-bzip2 > compression and multi-instance naming) but the core design stayed > the same. I thi

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 3:29 AM Michał Górny wrote: > On Sat, 2018-11-10 at 09:37 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 8:09 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > Hi, everyone. > > > > > > The Gentoo's tbz2/xpak package format is

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [RFC] Improving Gentoo package format

On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 2:21 PM Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 1:02 PM M. J. Everitt wrote: > > > > If you can really present a decent argument for replicating the > > functionality of other distros like Debian, Arch, Ubuntu etc then let's > > here it. For now, the strength of Gen

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [RFC] gpkg format proposal v2

On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 3:24 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > On Mon, 12 Nov 2018, Michał Górny wrote: > > >> Also, what would be wrong with ar? It's a standard POSIX tool, and > >> should be available everywhere. > > > The original post says what's wrong with ar. Please be more specific > > if

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 0/4] Rename PORT_LOGDIR{,_CLEAN} variables to PORTAGE_LOGDIR{,_CLEAN} Bug 668538

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:51 AM Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 2018-12-17 at 15:44 +, M. J. Everitt wrote: > > On 17/12/18 12:54, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > Not only this, but as noted, unless you know the man pages for > portage and > > > > make.conf in order to recite them in your sleep, t

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] bindbapi: add reentrant lock method (bug 685236)

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 8:15 PM Zac Medico wrote: > Add a reentrant lock/unlock method which is useful for things like > emaint binhost and eclean-pkg. The vardbapi class already provides > lock/unlock methods that behave the same way. > Curious why we are not doing more encapsulation here. I'd

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] bindbapi: add reentrant lock method (bug 685236)

On Wed, May 8, 2019 at 2:05 PM Zac Medico wrote: > On 5/7/19 1:01 PM, Zac Medico wrote: > > On 5/7/19 7:55 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > > >> Also curious why we are not implementing enter and exit so we can avoid > >> unbalanced pairs by using context managers. &g

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Use RTNETLINK to configure the loopback interface

unit tests? -A On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 8:03 PM Mike Gilbert wrote: > This eliminates the dependency on iproute2 on Linux. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Gilbert > --- > lib/portage/process.py | 25 -- > lib/portage/util/netlink.py | 91 + > 2 files ch

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] fetch: Support GLEP 75 mirror structure

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 7:52 AM Michał Górny wrote: > Add a support for the subset of GLEP 75 needed by Gentoo Infra. This > includes fetching and parsing layout.conf, and support for flat layout > and filename-hash layout with cutoffs being multiplies of 4. > > Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/64689

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] fetch: Support GLEP 75 mirror structure

On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 9:37 AM Michał Górny wrote: > Add a support for the subset of GLEP 75 needed by Gentoo Infra. This > includes fetching and parsing layout.conf, and support for flat layout > and filename-hash layout with cutoffs being multiplies of 4. > > Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/64689

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] repoman.modules.vcs.git.changes: reindex (bug 712106)

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 12:16 AM Zac Medico wrote: > For files returned by git diff-index, call git update-index in order > to ensure that the index reflects the state on disk. This will prevent > incorrect assumptions in cases where the index is missing or stale for > some reason. Since repoman

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] precisions on installed packages' dependencies

On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:31 AM wrote: > > - Zac Medico a écrit : > > > > The goal of my tool is to have correct manipulation of package > dependencies, and in particular here, I focus on the packages that are > installed but not in the portage tree/a local overlay anymore (the problem > do

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] precisions on installed packages' dependencies

On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 7:00 AM wrote: > > - Alec Warner a écrit : > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2020 at 11:31 AM wrote: > > > However, I still doubt that only storing the soname dependencies is > enough. > > > Consider package A (that cannot be recompiled) that d

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Need backup mentor for FUSE-based sandbox project

On Thu, Apr 23, 2020 at 12:09 PM Michał Górny wrote: > Hi, everyone. > > It seems that we *urgently* (read: in 6 days) need to find backup > mentors for this year's GSoC projects. I'm mentoring the project to > develop a FUSE-based sandbox alternative that's going to work reliably > with more pa

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] config.environ: delay export of A and AA (bug 720180)

On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 9:34 PM Zac Medico wrote: > Since variables like A and AA can contain extremely large values which > may trigger E2BIG errors during attempts to execute subprocesses, delay > export until the last moment, and unexport when appropriate. > So I think if you want to do this

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] config.environ: delay export of A and AA (bug 720180)

On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 9:46 AM Zac Medico wrote: > On 5/26/20 1:43 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 9:34 PM Zac Medico > <mailto:zmed...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > > > > Since variables like A and AA can contain extremely large values > wh

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/3] Add caching to catpkgsplit function

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 12:03 AM Chun-Yu Shei wrote: > Awesome! Here's a patch that adds @lru_cache to use_reduce, vercmp, and > catpkgsplit. use_reduce was split into 2 functions, with the outer one > converting lists/sets to tuples so they can be hashed and creating a > copy of the returned li

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/3] Add caching to catpkgsplit function

" incorrectly) > Ahhh it's visible there; I'll blame gMail ;) -A > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:04 PM Alec Warner wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 12:03 AM Chun-Yu Shei wrote: >> >>> Awesome! Here's a patch that adds @lru_c

[gentoo-portage-dev] pylint progress

Hi, Recently I've begun to run pylint on the portage codebase. You can see some recent PRs on this[0][1][2]. Most of the linter errors I've fixed are what I consider 'fairly trivial'. In general I'm happy to disable errors (or instances of errors) in addition to resolving them. You can see some of

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Add @changed-subslot package set

On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 6:47 PM Matt Turner wrote: > > This set is the upgradable packages for which the highest visible > version has a different subslot than the currently installed version. > > The primary purpose of this feature is for use in catalyst builds. We > update the "seed" stage3 befo

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Add @changed-subslot package set

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:09 PM Zac Medico wrote: > > On 1/18/21 6:07 PM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 6:47 PM Matt Turner wrote: > >> > >> This set is the upgradable packages for which the highest visible > >> version has a differe

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] In what phase are file "merged"?

On Thu, Aug 5, 2021 at 9:23 PM Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > On Fri, 06 Aug 2021, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > > On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 13:33 +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > >> On Wed, 2021-06-23 at 12:40 +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >> > I don't think that the ebuild can rely on any particular sta

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Performance tuning and parallelisation

On Thu, Aug 26, 2021 at 4:03 AM Ed W wrote: > > Hi All > > Consider this a tentative first email to test the water, but I have started > to look at performance > of particularly the install phase of the emerge utility and I could use some > guidance on where to go > next To clarify; the 'instal

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/2] doebuild.py: check for inconsistent PROVIDES/image post-src_install

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 1:11 PM Sam James wrote: > > This is part of a series of fixes for the linked bug (failure > to preserve libraries in some situations). > > At the point of installation (even if not merging), we need > to detect inconsistent metadata: PROVIDES should be populated > if we're

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/2] Binpkg.py: check for inconsistent PROVIDES/image when unpacking binpkg

On Sat, Oct 2, 2021 at 1:11 PM Sam James wrote: > > This is part of a series of fixes for the linked bug (failure > to preserve libraries in some situations). > > When unpacking a binpkg to be installed, we should check > for the existence of PROVIDES if we're installing any > dynamic libraries. I

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] LTS branch of Portage

On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 1:31 AM Michał Górny wrote: > > Hi, everyone. > > I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent > FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS > branch of Portage. > > Roughly, the idea is that: > > - master becomes 3.1.x, and

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] lib/_emerge/actions.py: warn on missing /run

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 8:20 PM Sam James wrote: > > Newer versions of build-docbook-catalog use > /run/lock. This exposed that we weren't > asking users to mount /run in the handbook. > > Check if it exists and warn if it doesn't. > > This should primarily (exclusively?) be a > problem in chroots

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [RFC] LTS branch of Portage

On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 4:25 PM Francesco Riosa wrote: > > > Il giorno mar 5 ott 2021 alle ore 10:31 Michał Górny ha > scritto: >> >> Hi, everyone. >> >> I've been thinking about this for some time already, and the recent >> FILESDIR mess seems to confirm it: I'd like to start a more stable LTS

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] estrip: rework hard link logic in save_elf_debug

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021 at 10:10 AM Mike Gilbert wrote: > > GDB loads debug files based on the file name given in the .gnu_debuglink > section, prepended with /usr/lib/debug/${dirname}, where dirname is the > absolute path to the parent directory of the binary being executed. > > For each unique inod

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 1/4] portage.dep.Atom: Clean up __new__ parameters

maybe *unused_args, **unused_kwargs, unsure on the style guide for that (normally its _) But feel free to merge as-is. -A On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 8:15 PM Matt Turner wrote: > > From: "Wolfgang E. Sanyer" > > Reviewed-by: Matt Turner > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang E. Sanyer > --- > lib/portage/de

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 2/4] portage.eapi: use tuple instead of str for namedtuple definition

Looks merge-able. On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 8:15 PM Matt Turner wrote: > > From: "Wolfgang E. Sanyer" > > Reviewed-by: Matt Turner > Signed-off-by: Wolfgang E. Sanyer > --- > lib/portage/eapi.py | 52 - > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 19 deletions

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Portage-2.1_pre5

Paul Varner wrote: On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 20:07 -0500, Alec Warner wrote: Your testing is appreciated. I'll file a bug for this one, once I investigate further. 'genlop -t' doesn't get along with it very well. # genlop -t screen * app-misc/screen Thu Dec 15 2

[gentoo-portage-dev] Config Cleanup Last Call

Please review for badness, otherwise I'll commit this soon ;) --- portage.py 2006-01-15 00:08:06.170717008 -0500 +++ - 2006-01-15 00:22:00.597106000 -0500 @@ -931,17 +931,8 @@ self.use_defs = copy.deepcopy(clone.use_defs) self.usemask = copy.deepc

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

Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Saturday 25 February 2006 10:40, Alec Warner wrote: > >>Please review for badness, otherwise I'll commit this soon ;) > > > - self.backupenv = os.environ.copy() > - self.configlist.append(self.backupenv) # XXX Why though? &g

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

Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Saturday 25 February 2006 10:40, Alec Warner wrote: > >>Please review for badness, otherwise I'll commit this soon ;) > > > - self.backupenv = os.environ.copy() > - self.configlist.append(self.backupenv) # XXX Why though? &g

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions regarding the new portage API (savior branch)

Marius Mauch wrote: > > Does that mean we should drop the SVN branch? > > Marius > I've already removed it from the documentation and added links to Brian's current work on ge.org. As far as the actual repo, I think keeping it around a bit longer might be beneficial, but who knows. signatur

[gentoo-portage-dev] ExtractKernelVersion

The kernel ( along with QA ) has reported that the portage generated $KV is sometimes quite horribly wrong. They would like us to retire the kernel generated $KV, ebuilds that need $KV should inherit linux-info, unless they are themselves a kernel-module, in which case they should inherit linux-mo

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Few things, which imho would make portage better

ode. Uhhh you don't like normalizing your schemas? Normalizing does two things, reduces redundant data, and increases database speed as tables are designed in a manner that minimalizes merging time. Running with a schema you pulled out of your ass is likely to give poor database performance. -A

[gentoo-portage-dev] EAPI

This has been on my list for a while, Brian Harring put EAPI into portage 2.0.53; it's used for introducting new features into the tree. A) Are we planning on using it at all? I like the idea of it, but no one has really said much about it besides Brian himself. If so I'll work up a list of thin

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] DB and binary dependency

tvali wrote: Can someone tell me, which portage python commands should be used or which kind of file created, if i'm going to test this idea? -- in beginning, i would like to just add simple deps - are ebuilds the only place to change and is there any clear doc of them [as i wouldnt like to go

[gentoo-portage-dev] Pychecker

I spent some time running pychecker on some of the files in pym/ to just get a gander at what is going on. I've noticed a lot of bogus imports and bogus variable scopes, and one bug i thought we fixed ages ago but apparently we didn't. If no one objects out of hand I will go through and start fix

[gentoo-portage-dev] Repoman Help Extraction

ngs: + elif x in repohelp.qawarnings: print yellow(`stats[x]`) else: print red(`stats[x]`) @@ -342,16 +161,16 @@ if len(sys.argv)>1: x=1 while x < len(sys.argv): - if sys.argv[x] in sh

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

Sorry, send with wrong address earlier. Original Message Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1 release candidate soon? Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 20:09:06 -0400 From: Alec Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <[EMAIL

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

Zac Medico wrote: > > > This kind of thing will be less of a problem if we shorten the period of the > release cycle. If we shorted it to 2 months or so, then it won't matter much > when something gets bumped to the next cycle. > > >>>Also this isn't exactly news to you all as I sent my inte

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

Brian Harring wrote: On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 05:15:53PM +0200, Philipp Riegger wrote: On Apr 7, 2006, at 5:26 PM, Alec Warner wrote: We have a new cache format, confcache, parallel fetch, etc... The bonus is these features are already mature and relatively old ( a year + as of now

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Outstanding decisions

Simon Stelling wrote: Hey all, I'm just wading through a list of ~200 bugs of which some need decisions what should be done, whether it should be done at all or simply whether it is a bug or not. Bug: SRC_URI: spaces not supported http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102607 Is this a 'NOTA

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Outstanding decisions

Simon Stelling wrote: > Next bunch of bugs that need a decision: > > Bug: portage: emerge unmerge ... should stop in case of an error > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=118515 > Another WONTFIX/WILLFIX issue > > Bug: need a way to package.unmask packages in profiles > http://bugs.gentoo.org

Portage Features That Depend on Binaries [WAS: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Re: 2.1 release candidate soon? ]

Philipp Riegger wrote: > On Apr 15, 2006, at 6:10 PM, Duncan wrote: > >>> But i really think this is not about helping but about confusion. If i >>> post my emerge --info you don't know if i really use confcache even >>> if i >>> have FEATURES="confcache", because emerge --info does not say if i

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: r3200 - main/trunk/bin

Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 23 April 2006 12:36, Alec Warner wrote: > >>Modified: >> main/trunk/bin/sed >>Log: >>Make sed wrapper not executable. > > > why ? it isnt hurting anything to be set executable > -mike At present it is not in the

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Refactoring of emerge code

Is there any chance you can break this up? Mostly one patch for each * below? OTherwise it's rather large ( 1000 lines ) and is difficult to figure out what/when/where happened m h wrote: > Upon further testing, I'm updating a line in the patch > > On 4/28/06, m h <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Refactoring of emerge code

> like to make this another patch as well. > > I noticed that this patch won't apply to the new portage (pre10 broke > it). Should I be working against that or different code (from the cvs > tree perhaps)? (I'd like to get a patch in that people can try before > it bec

[gentoo-portage-dev] Breakout etc-update, dispatch-conf

A bunch of bugs have been fixed with both of these lately, anyone against splitting them out, please speak up now, otherwise I will split them out later this week and portage will depend on some nasty virtual whose name I have not come up with yet ( new style virtual ). -Antarus -- gentoo-portage

[gentoo-portage-dev] Stablizing portage 2.1

Per some discussion on IRC, I am bring stablizing 2.1 at the pre9 or pre10 branch to the table. Reasons for doing so include: 2006.1 - They say if 2.1 is to be in 2006.1, mid-july Xorg Modular - They cannot stable xorg modular until 2.1 is stable FreeBSD - Their entire port depends on features an

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Stablizing portage 2.1

Marius Mauch wrote: Alec Warner schrieb: Why Branch at 2.1_pre9? Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2 in the tree and fixing up it's code instead. Why not pre10? Because pre10 see

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Stablizing portage 2.1

Zac Medico wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Alec Warner wrote: Marius Mauch wrote: Alec Warner schrieb: Why Branch at 2.1_pre9? Manifest2 is already in the tree and needs refinement. Branching at pre7 is also a canidate, but i would rather press for keeping manifest2 in

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Perl, sort, and locale

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Seems like something is wrong, but I don't know what. This happens on > other versions of Linux. It is not a gentoo specific problem. > IIRC the locale issue is known, but it would be best to contact upstream (GNU?) in this case. Many of the problems in portage are s

[gentoo-portage-dev] secpass=1 and wheel

# Portage has 3 security levels that depend on the uid and gid of the main # process and are assigned according to the following table: # # Privileges secpass uidgid # normal 0anyany # group 1anyportage_gid # super 20 any # # If the "whee

[gentoo-portage-dev] tiny manpage fix

Attached is a tiny diff for make.conf, can someone with l337 skills in manpages look it over before it gets commited. Thanks -Alec Index: make.conf.5 === --- make.conf.5 (revision 3414) +++ make.conf.5 (working copy) @@ -208,6 +208,9

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] 2.1-rc3-r5 extraneous but (I think) harmless message?

Duncan wrote: I've been noticing this for a couple revisions I think, but am not sure if it's new behavior or if I'm just noticing what's been there all along. At the end of a new package merge, after the binpkg tarball (I'm using FEATURES=binpkg) has been created, then decompressed and merged,

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Update www-apache/mod_jk to 1.2.15

Paul Dlug wrote: On 6/6/06, *Grant Goodyear* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: Paul Dlug wrote: > The following patch upgrades www-apache/mod_jk to 1.2.15 (current latest > available version in portage is 1.2.13 which has numerous evil bugs). > This

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Manifest verification

> Now I get it. So could somebody add a line to > make.conf.example that says which features are on by > default? I didn't notice strict was on. We can't tell you that, FEATURES are stacked, first make.defaults, and then from your profile setting; aka the default FEATURES are only known at runtim

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] per-package use.mask (bug 96368)

Since you're sliding this in, why not slide it in using use dep syntax? No, not going to fight over this not being in package.mask, what I'm saying is this _is_ masking of a use dep atom, just use use dep syntax in the file instead. If y'all get use deps, it'll be a bit simpler for folks t

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: emaint

Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Sunday 11 June 2006 18:38, you wrote: >> The man page says you're the author (of the man page anyway) of >> emaint. I don't quite understand this utility. > > i just usually write all the man pages > >> I've noticed that emerge now has something called a "set" of which

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided

Paul Bredbury wrote: > Hi, I was directed to this list after my Portage patches were rejected. > I'm hoping that someone *other* than the rejecter will look at the bug, > and: See it as a valid bug, reopen it, and take SpanKY's keyboard away > so he can't reject it again. > > The bug is: http://b

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided

Paul Bredbury wrote: >> There is a third option. Reporting an error. > > But it is not an error. The answer is known to be False, through the > application of logic. There are really 3 states here Either you have enough information to prove something true; OR you have enough information to prove

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided

Paul Bredbury wrote: >> Go find a mathematician and discuss this matter with him. Tell him what you >> told >> me, and he will slap you with a large frying pan. > > Here's a non-programming example, to make things clearer. > > It's a sunny Sunday, and Fred is watching a labourer trying to build

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] has_version and built_with_use ignore package.provided

Paul Bredbury wrote: > You do if you want to convince me that I'm wrong. I promise that I'll > eat humble pie. Tempting? > Luckily we don't have to do that, you just have to convince us that you are correct; and you have failed thus far. -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] use.force and package.use.force (bug #142853)

Zac Medico wrote: >Users can unforce them via /etc/portage/profile/{use.force,package.use.force} >in the usual "-flag" way. Why new files? Why isn't this just pushed into the use stacking order over-ridable by the user (default USE flags, and not forcing)? Then they can over-ride it in package

  1   2   3   >