Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Next major version

2005-08-13 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 12:04:34PM -0400, Kristian Benoit wrote: I remember, when I started using Gentoo, reading that portage is a stand alone tool, it is not bind into Gentoo in anyway, someone could use it on redhat, debian, lfs... Nice intention, but impossible with stable/alpha code- the

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] sane USE_EXPAND + IUSE check

2005-08-16 Thread Brian Harring
Hola- basically, use_expand'd vars need to be exempted from IUSE checks, as long as the USE_EXPAND var is in IUSE. This does that. ~harring Index: ebuild.sh === RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-src/portage/bin/ebuild.sh,v retrieving

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Environment Whitelisting

2005-08-22 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:33:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: Theoretical discussions about this are pointless IMO without numbers/facts to back things up. I'd posit theroetical discussions about this are pointless without getting ebuild dev's to give a yay/nay on whether they want it or not;

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: initial EAPI awareness

2005-08-28 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Aug 28, 2005 at 02:31:24AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: Brian Harring wrote: Please test this out; if you want to test the EAPI checking, tag EAPI=1 into an ebuild, and try making emerge bail. I needed to patch ebuild.sh so that EAPI would be parsed. It bails out properly now. Crud

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: initial EAPI awareness

2005-08-30 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 07:46:24PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: On 08/29/05 Brian Harring wrote: That and the fact the 2.1 state should be decided, if we're going to have (effectively) two branches of development going at once, vs developmental line and maintenance branch. Well

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: initial EAPI awareness

2005-09-02 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 10:53:05AM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: On Friday 02 September 2005 08:04, Brian Harring wrote: Like I've said, EAPI is ebuild specific. Ebuild is a format; eapi defines revisions of it, in my mind a minor revision of the ebuild 1 format. Any form of loss

[gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH glep31 checking

2005-09-19 Thread Brian Harring
Hola. http://glep.gentoo.org/glep-0031.html-- the details http://bugs.gentoo.org/106544-- the bug http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?=68828 -- the patch Attached the patch also; one additional tweak is that file.size is now a fatal check, since the tree seem's to

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH glep31 checking

2005-09-19 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 04:12:08PM -0500, Brian Harring wrote: Attached the patch also; one additional tweak is that file.size is now a fatal check, since the tree seem's to finally be clean. Dropped the file.size becoming fatal change on the bug, and intend to for the final version. Either

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

2005-10-01 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Oct 01, 2005 at 11:57:01PM +0200, Daniel Stiefelmaier wrote: man emerge provides information on possible options, why should there not be a way to get information on an ebuilds option??? because emerge is the tool, not the object. You wouldn't expect the openoffice

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

2005-10-03 Thread Brian Harring
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 inheritance... * Make all aux_get() functions return a list of

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

2005-10-03 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 08:27:09AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: 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

[gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] bug 107770 ebuild screwing up A when executing phase by phase

2005-10-04 Thread Brian Harring
Quicky description of the bug is that A was being defined to '' in the ebuild env; due to the fact ebuild.sh automatically stomps the current passed in env with the previous env (it's bad, we know it already :), this resulted in A getting auto set to a bad value, and the value lingering.

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] bug 107770 ebuild screwing up A when executing phase by phase

2005-10-04 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 09:17:22AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote: Responding to myself, because I'm an idiot, attached is the correct patch. ~harring Index: bin/ebuild.sh === --- bin/ebuild.sh (revision 2082) +++ bin/ebuild.sh

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] allow extra info to be echod on die

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:33:17PM +, Thomas Matthijs wrote: Hi, I would really like a way to echo more information when a die happens so the users can paste it in their bug report Only needs a very simple change to ebuild.sh: EBUILD_DEATH_HOOKS='' diefunc() { local

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] allow extra info to be echod on die

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
, since I'd expect some devs would be interested in it. ~harring On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:48:01AM -0500, Brian Harring wrote: On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:33:17PM +, Thomas Matthijs wrote: Hi, I would really like a way to echo more information when a die happens so the users can paste

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
Yay, time for another flame war (just what I'd love to spend my time on). On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:06:47PM -0400, Alec Joseph Warner wrote: Hey Folks- I'm working on trying to get prefixed installs working. (As such, I'm using some code kindly modified by Michael Haubenwallner. ) I'm

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 09:57:03PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:24:29 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | To head off the it's not going to work for vim-*, yah, you'll be | boned and have to install duplicate vim-* into the global prefix. | Bluntly, either

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:16:06PM -0500, Kito wrote: My first question would be how to identify ebuilds that respect $ {prefix}? A separate profile/keyword seems wrong. Agreed. ICANINSTALLTO was the best idea presented, but that implies it would be a list of known working prefixes,

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:52:59PM -0700, m h wrote: Hmmm, I'm not clear yet on the value of interdomain, but I'm sure someone will enlighten me along the way... interdomain would be how ciaran's HOME request would be pulled off; user's 'domain', configuration settings + prefix offset would try

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:29:56PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:16:06 -0500 Kito [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | b) assume that you'll not have to modify ebuilds | | I don't think anyone(devs) has made this naive assumption have they? pvdabeel has for pathspec. | and

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:14:30AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:00:12 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Beyond that, there is the shebang issue which can be addresses via a | combination of automated scans/fixes, and fixing bugs as it's hit. | Hardcoded

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:38:35AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:22:37 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 12:14:30AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:00:12 -0500 Brian Harring | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | wrote

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 01:13:53AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 18:40:46 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | It does in some places, it doesn't in others. It especially doesn't | for things that aren't normally found via PATH. It's a hell of a | mess

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:23:47AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:17:40 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | The issue is that you need to fix autoconf before you can claim that | any non-trivial test case works correctly. | | And how are you going to verify

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:40:58AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:32:20 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] Portage is considerably less work than the tree. Saving as much effort as possible from an ebuild perspective should be a major consideration, even if it makes

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 03:01:12AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:48:26 -0500 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | The sensible place to start experimenting is by adapting existing | ebuilds and tinkering with ebuild.sh, not by adding something which | may or may

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

2005-10-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:14:32PM +1000, Finn Thain wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Kito wrote: [snip] My first question would be how to identify ebuilds that respect ${prefix}? A separate profile/keyword seems wrong. ICANINSTALLTO was the best idea presented, but that implies

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

2005-10-06 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 07:29:12PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 09:07:12 -0400 Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: | Then I suggest you file this e-mail away and when the time comes that | the code is to be merged and it sucks ( and by sucks I mean more than | it

[gentoo-portage-dev] ECONF_EXTRA handling: bug 38618

2005-10-07 Thread Brian Harring
Anyone got a good reason bug 38618 shouldn't go in? Essentially it's ./configure ... -${EXTRA_ECONF} $@ +$@ ${EXTRA_ECONF} It allows for users to override ebuild defined configure options, potentially shooting themselves in the foot, but in the same token they can already shoot themselves in

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Custom eclass question

2005-10-10 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 06:52:24PM -0500, Mikey wrote: http://codeserver.wherever.net/pman/package_ids.php?action=packageid=10105 [snip bits about wget screwing up] Others have already clarified that's it python side rather then bash so eclass is no go, but out of curiousity any got a good

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Changelogs

2005-10-10 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 08:35:03PM +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote: Hi guys, Is there any particular reason that the changelog was dropped from recent portage versions. I'd like to have it to see what changed. Especially with release candidates that sometimes develop issues. Intending on

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

2005-10-11 Thread Brian Harring
Since axxo is being a slacker (:-P) and hasn't posted this, did a quicky implentation for stable ebuild.sh of pre/post phase hooks. The intention of these hooks are for users to define funcs in their /etc/portage/bashrc; the phase to be hooked, say pkg_setup , is hooked via echo $'

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Custom eclass question

2005-10-11 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 10:37:43AM +0300, Marius Mauch wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 06:52:24PM -0500, Mikey wrote: http://codeserver.wherever.net/pman/package_ids.php?action=packageid=10105 [snip bits about wget screwing up] Others have already clarified that's

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Custom eclass question

2005-10-11 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 09:13:01PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: On Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:59:42 +0200 (CEST) Matthias Waechter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Harring wrote: Where do you get the filename from if not SRC_URI? Additional metadata tagged in, or mangling of the syntax in some

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Cache rewrite backport

2005-10-11 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:01:12AM +0200, Bastian Balthazar Bux wrote: Sorry, but here the results are not those expected: .51.22 vs .53_rc5... try with a vanilla .53_rc5 please time emerge --metadata; 1st run; 2.0.51.22-r3 real2m24.419s user0m12.329s sys 0m3.644s

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Cache rewrite backport

2005-10-11 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:49:44AM +0200, Bastian Balthazar Bux wrote: Brian Harring ha scritto: On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:01:12AM +0200, Bastian Balthazar Bux wrote: Sorry, but here the results are not those expected: .51.22 vs .53_rc5... try with a vanilla .53_rc5 please here

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Cache rewrite backport

2005-10-11 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 03:49:44AM +0200, Bastian Balthazar Bux wrote: Brian Harring ha scritto: On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 12:01:12AM +0200, Bastian Balthazar Bux wrote: Sorry, but here the results are not those expected: .51.22 vs .53_rc5... try with a vanilla .53_rc5 please here

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Cache rewrite backport

2005-10-11 Thread Brian Harring
Rather then keep posting large patches here, just going to post them to dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/portage/2.0 ... for example, http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/portage/2.0/3.0-cache-backport-experimental-4.patch should be pulled rather then previous patch. Helluva lot easier for me since I can

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Cache rewrite backport

2005-10-12 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 02:56:38PM +0200, Bastian Balthazar Bux wrote: Brian Harring ha scritto: Rather then keep posting large patches here, just going to post them to dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/portage/2.0 ... for example, http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/portage/2.0/3.0-cache-backport

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Cache rewrite backport

2005-10-12 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 05:15:15PM -0500, Paul Varner wrote: On Tue, 2005-10-11 at 02:10 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: Either way, test, feeding stats back, etc, would be appreciated ;) Thanks, Hokay... so experimental-6 seems to be at least mostly stable now, no tracebacks, no --metadata

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Cache rewrite backport

2005-10-13 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:05:40PM +0200, Nagatoro wrote: Brian Harring wrote: Hmm, when trying to update the cache (emerge --metadata) I get this: --- Updating Portage cache: Traceback (most recent call last): File /usr/bin/emerge, line 2734, in ? cache.util.mirror_cache(source, cm

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] exclude cache from sync, was:Cache rewrite backport

2005-10-13 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 07:12:42PM +0200, Francesco R. wrote: Elaborating on the previous subject an idea come in mind, avoid the $PORTDIR/metadata/cache sync, It's 80 MB, 2 files So I've tryed the first python patch of my life, obviously it's also the first portage one (subliminal

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Suggestion: Backup option in make.conf

2005-10-14 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 06:28:53AM +0200, Rafael Fern?ndez L?pez wrote: Hi, My suggestion for portage is: when you do an emerge -vuD world, you have to work at the end of the emerging with the /etc config files and see the differences to know if you want to overwrite file by file

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

2005-10-14 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 01:45:42PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Since I've fallen into the terrible pit of trying to make everybody happy and since IRC sucks for making decisions due to lack of continuity, let's battle it out here. ;) /me refills the napalm, and gets ready... Where we're at:

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: emerge sync with cvs:// behaves oddly with initial checkout (bug 100478)

2005-10-18 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Oct 18, 2005 at 01:30:56AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: As brought to my attention by Brian, the problem with my previously posted patch is that the emerge sync cvs checkout will be owned by root and cvs doesn't allow commits by root. Apparently we need to devise a scheme to set the

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

2005-10-20 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 11:37:07PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Saturday 15 October 2005 07:05, Brian Harring wrote: On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 05:02:02PM -0500, Brian Harring wrote: Jason, your thoughts on this 53 wise? Bleh, pardon, meant .54 for inclussion Just to be sure it's clear

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

2005-10-21 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Oct 22, 2005 at 12:13:42PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Something like: * Add base class(es) for new cache framework * Add cache backend for XYZ database * Switch portdbapi to the new framework * Remove old framework eclass_cache.py chunking (portage.py removal) cache replacement (base

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

2005-10-29 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 11:38:56PM -0700, 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

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [3/7] portage_exec cleanups

2005-10-29 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 07:49:49PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: This patch simplifies the moving around and closing of file descriptors when setting up the pipe. The addition of fd_unused to the parameter list is in preparation of a later patch. +++ portage_exec.py 2005-10-29

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

2005-10-29 Thread Brian Harring
found that a file descriptor was being left open and passed around. However, it was definately not created in spawn(). It seems to me though that code outside of spawn should take care of closing (or telling spawn to close) any unnecessary FDs. On Saturday 29 October 2005 23:22, Brian

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

2005-10-29 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 02:20:02AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Trying to alter patches that have been split up is a PITA. Missed a var rename in the patch just sent. :/ Heh, nice timing on the max_fd_limit, beat me in sending it by 46 seconds :) Personally... for a change like what you're

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

2005-10-29 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:02:43PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 30 October 2005 09:32, Ned Ludd wrote: On Sun, 2005-10-30 at 03:15 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: This really goes hand in hand with the pre/post phase hooks patch. That patch, however, implements hooks as bash functions

[gentoo-portage-dev] cache subsystem replacement

2005-11-04 Thread Brian Harring
So... the cache rewrite is in svn now. Will nuke UNUSED_* next day or so, wanted to get the subsystem in before tweaking it further. ~harring pgp2SiFvy5R9Z.pgp Description: PGP signature

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

2005-11-08 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 11:54:11AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 06 November 2005 06:09, Brian Harring wrote: We've pretty much ignored the minor, and abused the micro for both bug fixing and feature inclusion. Thoughts on using micro for _strictly_ bug fixes, and macro for features

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

2005-11-08 Thread Brian Harring
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 major changes in there already. I kind of expect .54 to do

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

2005-11-08 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 06:32:18PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 02:29:14 -0600 Question is how will it scale for non-bugfixes, disruptive changes like cache backport, elog backporting, confcache, etc? What I'm concerned about is what's going to occur with .5x when large

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

2005-11-09 Thread Brian Harring
Just forwarding this to the ml; commited it to svn earlier today. If people are after having the commit mail dumped in their mbox, please contact either jstubbs, genone, or myself. ~harring - Forwarded message from Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:06:12

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage and porthole

2005-11-10 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:42:54PM -0800, Brian wrote: Just a quick question. With all the changes I see in this list. Is there anything coming (that you know of) that will break porthole's use of portage. Long term? I'm unfortunately looking at breaking pretty much all api access portage

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage and porthole

2005-11-10 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 09:29:22PM -0800, Brian wrote: On Thu, 2005-10-11 at 20:51 -0600, Brian Harring wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:42:54PM -0800, Brian wrote: Just a quick question. With all the changes I see in this list. Is there anything coming (that you know

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

2005-11-11 Thread Brian Harring
Hola, Short version is that via bug 112082 plus glibc upstream doing something stupid, a lovely bug has reared it's head. Basically, users upgrading from glibc-2.3.5.200*.ebuild have libc.so-2.3.90.so, and glibc-2.3.6.ebuild has libc.so-2.3.6.so . ldconfig views 2.3.90 as greater then 2.3.6;

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

2005-11-14 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 04:32:35PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Monday 14 November 2005 00:46, Jason Stubbs wrote: Replace 2.1.0 with 2.2.0 and I'll agree. Skipping 2.1 accomplishes what? People asking, whoah there, it's a later version then 2.1, where's the 2.1 functionality? will still

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Plugin framework

2005-11-14 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 10:38:28PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 13 November 2005 11:57, Brian Harring wrote: ?? filenames. OT, but return of the funky 'A's... Curious if others are seeing it, or if my nano/mutt setup just plain sucks. * portage.py edits to the config class to make

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] cache subsystem replacement

2005-11-14 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:13:58AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: Was talking with a guy yesterday who mentioned he had 10 line patch that sped up current portage a lot with regard to updating metadata. I asked him to send it to me and here it is: --- -??2005-10-29 18:49:15.156173000 +0900

[gentoo-portage-dev] confcache

2005-11-14 Thread Brian Harring
Hola all. Wrote another confcache implementation (this time not bound to ebd thank god), and stuck an ebuild and portage patch for it in http://dev.gentoo.org/~ferringb/confcache/ . Should be a bit stricter then the 2.1 implementation; for those not aware of what it is, it's a global autoconf

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

2005-11-15 Thread Brian Harring
Yo. Continuing the pillaging of ebd, attached is an integration of parallel-fetch. The modification is pretty straight forward offhand; the notable difference this time around is rather then extending portage_exec to have the capability to 'spawn' python funcs (something I always found

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Bugzilla Bug 112779: New and Improved Way to Handle /etc/portage

2005-11-18 Thread Brian Harring
Zac Medico wrote: Brian Harring wrote: This makes portage go looking in two different locations for overrides; I know from looking through the code, /etc/portage/package.* overrides the includes, but users won't. This behavior could be documented and possibly configurable. Adding another

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

2005-11-18 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 12:46:04AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Wednesday 16 November 2005 04:41, solar wrote: For those of you that do not know we Mike Frysinger and myself have written a general purpose ELF Q/A tool called pax-utils The tool itself can be used to preform a number of

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Bugzilla Bug 112779: New and Improved Way to Handle /etc/portage

2005-11-18 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 09:25:57AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: Brian Harring wrote: The type of changes you're talking about could just as easily be integrated into package.* with source command added to it. Where's the gain in adding a secondary location for these files, when the same can

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] inital Manifest2 support

2005-11-18 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:07:56 +0100 Marius Mauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey, IIRC we (=Gentoo as a whole) pretty much agreed to drop the digest files in favor of a extended Manifest format. Well, today I wrote some

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

2005-11-19 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:12:46PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: +++ ./pym/portage_locks.py  2005-11-16 01:56:25.152161768 -0500 @@ -358,3 +359,91 @@ +# should the fd be left open indefinitely? +# IMO, it shouldn't, but opening/closing everytime around is expensive It should be

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

2005-11-20 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 11:33:02AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Sunday 20 November 2005 01:11, Brian Harring wrote: On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 12:50:25AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: regarding FsLocks and keeping fds open while unlocked I still don't see why fds should remain open after all

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

2005-11-30 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:51:58PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: Brian Harring wrote: Note that due to how it's implemented, this does two rounds of verification- it'll actually do *two* rounds of fetching too, if things go awry in the backgrounded thread. Two possible improvements to help

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

2005-12-01 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 12:03:46PM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: Well, I'm running the latest svn so there could be a regression in the recent changes to portage_exec.cleanup(). Does changing SIKTERM to SIGKILL fix it? No, SIGKILL doesn't seem to make a difference (not a regression then). It

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

2005-12-15 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:41:22PM -0600, Brian Harring wrote: snip comments on parent emerge not killing child emerge Either way, here's the issue, atexit registers work fine across forks, portage.portagexit is registered prior to portage_exec.cleanup, so the main portage pid sits

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] chunking up portage

2005-12-16 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:54:06PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: Brian Harring wrote: So... thoughts? I'm not much for making portage depend on tarsync just for emerge-webrsync improvements, would rather chunk the bugger out. How about runtime detection? runtime detection is questionable

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

2005-12-16 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Dec 16, 2005 at 12:09:10PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Thursday 15 December 2005 20:06, Brian Harring wrote: On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 07:41:22PM -0600, Brian Harring wrote: snip comments on parent emerge not killing child emerge Either way, here's the issue, atexit registers

[gentoo-portage-dev] dep_opconvert in portage.py and portage_dep

2005-12-18 Thread Brian Harring
Yo. New one from the looks of it- someone who has time (say, person who commited it), please iron out the portage.dep_opconvert and portage_dep.dep_opconvert. Naming sucks at the very least, but they look to be a candidate for refactoring/elimination. ~harring pgp22lOw8dnts.pgp Description:

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] making dodoc and dohtml die when they fail and stricter is on

2005-12-25 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:54:04AM +0200, Petteri Räty wrote: Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc or dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would only happen with

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

2005-12-25 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 06:48:02PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: On Sunday 25 December 2005 17:12, Brian Harring wrote: Can be defeated by a unpack ${DISTDIR}/file call, but that's invalid anyways. and what about things that do `cp ${DISTDIR}/aadsfasdf ${S}/` ? those are going to fail

[gentoo-portage-dev] minimal python version required

2005-12-26 Thread Brian Harring
Yo. So I'm getting antsy, and looking to start using fun features like sets, generator expressions, etc. Not a 2.2 thing however. So the question is, when are we going to give the finger to 2.2 and move forward? :) ~harring pgpjw5zAtLPH9.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] emerge-webrsync patch

2005-12-28 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 05:38:02PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote: Paul Varner wrote: Instead of hardcoding the nice value, use PORTAGE_NICENESS. Here is how it is done in revdep-rebuild # Obey PORTAGE_NICENESS PORTAGE_NICENESS=$(portageq envvar PORTAGE_NICENESS) [ ! -z

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] emerge-webrsync patch

2005-12-29 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 03:51:03PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote: Brian Harring wrote: snip I'd also raid the tarsync call- this is something I was intending on doing but have't yet. /snip I don't have a very deep knowledge of all the portage internals. Are you suggesting

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] r2522 commit

2006-01-04 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Jan 04, 2006 at 09:33:07PM -0500, Alec Warner wrote: Author: ferringb Date: 2006-01-04 08:57:07 + (Wed, 04 Jan 2006) New Revision: 2522 Modified: main/trunk/pym/portage_dep.py Log: el buggo pointed out via spyderous. || ( a ( x? ( b ) y? ( c ) ) ) -x -y , was resulting in

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] making aux_get more usable for vardbapi

2006-01-11 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 07:53:04PM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: Currently vardbapi.aux_get only works for a subset of all auxdbkeys, as some like KEYWORDS or DESCRIPTIOn aren't stored in vdb directly. They are however stored in environment.bz2, but not accessible there. This is unintuitive and

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] emerge-webrsync patch

2006-01-11 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:15:00AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote: if [[ -n $PORTAGE_NICENESS ]] ! [[ -z $WE_ARE_NICED ]]; then Haven't looked at the patch yet, but a bit of bash fu for ya- [[ -n $VAR ]] == ! [[ -z $VAR ]] -z is zero length or unset, -n is length = 1 (thus must be set).

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] SQLite backend?

2006-01-18 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:01:29AM -0200, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: Hello, I admit I have not followed last threads about cache and new infrastructure (plugins and stuff). Might suggest you take a look at the cache rewrite- it already has a sqlite backend in it, although that's not

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] making aux_get more usable for vardbapi

2006-01-23 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 11:16:03AM +0100, Marius Mauch wrote: On Wed, 11 Jan 2006 12:39:03 -0800 Brian Harring [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Regex you've got there allows for pulling the wrong text- recall, ebd originally was doing grep based filtering (regex). Had to rewrite

[gentoo-portage-dev] confcache integration

2006-01-24 Thread Brian Harring
Yo. Looking to integrate confcache support into trunk some time in the near future- had users testing it for about 2 months (give or take), so far it's behaved pretty decently. A few packages eat themselves when ran with --cache (bad autotooling), hence the addition of restrict=confcache

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] confcache integration

2006-01-25 Thread Brian Harring
On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 03:37:07PM -0500, solar wrote: On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 00:30 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: On Tuesday 24 January 2006 21:50, Brian Harring wrote: +os.makedirs(mysettings[CONFCACHE_DIR], mode=0775) +os.chown(mysettings[CONFCACHE_DIR], portage_uid, -1

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] confcache integration

2006-01-25 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 12:30:22AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: it seems there's an external confcache binary but I can't tell much beyond that. Yes, it's external (standalone) now- dev-util/confcache. ~harring pgp4K5t0iJcYM.pgp Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] update portage cache progress patch

2006-01-26 Thread Brian Harring
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:05:31PM -0600, Jason Pepas wrote: Hi Guys, I cobbled together a quick little hack to have a little bit more interactivity during the Updating Portage cache phase. It prints out the name of the package it is updating, along with the percentage progress. Err...

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] http-replicator: error: invalid directory '/var/cache/http-replicator' [ ok ]

2006-01-27 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:11:13PM -0600, Dan Sheffner wrote: I'm trying to get the http replicator working. Wrong ml- try gentoo-user ml or bugs.gentoo.org. gentoo-portage-dev == sys-apps/portage development only, ebuilds within the distributed gentoo tree is a seperate issue :) ~harring

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] making aux_get more usable for vardbapi

2006-01-27 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 10:19:50AM -0800, Brian Harring wrote: #!/bin/sh eval $(bzcat environment.bz2 | filter-env -f '.*' -v 'BASH.*' ) for __x in $@; do echo __x=$(echo ${__x} | tr '\n,\r,\t' ' , , ') echo ${__x}=$(echo ${!__x} | tr '\n,\r,\t' ' , , ') done Change above would

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] http-replicator: error: invalid directory '/var/cache/http-replicator' [ ok ]

2006-01-27 Thread Brian Harring
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 01:35:25PM -0600, Dan Sheffner wrote: which group should I send this to? If you're asking about bugs.g.o, just file it without a group, the wrangler will redirect it (although if you look in the metadata.xml, it'll list the group to assign it to if there is a specific

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] rsync metadata cache patch (obsoletes metadata transfer on sync)

2006-01-28 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 02:39:42AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: def _delitem(self, cpv): try: del self.db_rw[cpv] except KeyError, ke: if not self.db_ro.has_key(cpv): raise ke You need

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] rsync metadata cache patch (obsoletes metadata transfer on sync)

2006-01-28 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Jan 28, 2006 at 11:24:18AM -0600, Andrew Gaffney wrote: Zac Medico wrote: I have reimplemented the previous patch as a normal cache module that adds a writable layer on top of the pre-generated metadata. If you'd like to try this out (with portage-2.1_preX), simply copy

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] emerge-webrsync patch

2006-02-02 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:16:14AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote: Brian, I just want to make sure this is still on your agenda :) InSVN, and in the tree... :) ~harring pgpcmhNYyu2R8.pgp Description: PGP signature

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

2006-02-02 Thread Brian Harring
Yo... attached is a patch enabling confcache support for portage. Lots of testing, plus fixups from comments from folks prior. So... giving it a few days, nows the time to bitch if you dislike the implementation (and no, I'm not rewriting all of doebuild just for this :) ~harring Index:

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] emerge-webrsync patch

2006-02-02 Thread Brian Harring
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote: Brian Harring wrote: On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:16:14AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote: Brian, I just want to make sure this is still on your agenda :) InSVN, and in the tree... :) Great! Thanks

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-portage] [PATCH] prevent world file corruption by writing atomically

2006-02-05 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Jan 30, 2006 at 10:21:22AM -0800, Zac Medico wrote: Zac Medico wrote: Okay, I've created a file-like class called atomic_ostream and it is now used for both write_atomic() and writedict(). I've been using this patch locally with no problems. Do we have any more feedback or are

  1   2   >