| 1 |
On Sat, 2013-12-28 at 08:05 -0800, W. Trevor King wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 06:54:28AM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Saturday 28 December 2013 01:11:08 Brian Dolbec wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > I don't know if catalyst can do that or not and whether it can |
| 5 |
> > > detect it to run perl-cleaner. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > catalyst certainly could grow code for handling perl-cleaner & |
| 8 |
> > friends. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> This sounds like a job for Portage and @preserved-rebuild ;). It has |
| 11 |
> already absorbed revdep-rebuild. Hopefully absorbing perl-cleaner, |
| 12 |
> python-updater, and similar is just a matter of time :p. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Cheers, |
| 15 |
> Trevor |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
No, it didn't absorb revdep-rebuild. It just does early (live) |
| 19 |
detection. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Actually, with the new python version of revdep-rebuild, there was talk |
| 22 |
of it absorbing python-updater and perl-cleaner (also coded in python) |
| 23 |
as part of it's normal revdep call. Then it would be a one stop call. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Actually, I think in this case. the original error would have been |
| 26 |
avoided if the user had used the same snapshot for all stages of the |
| 27 |
build. stage1 through livecd-*. I believe he/she just grabbed a stage3 |
| 28 |
and a current tree snapshot. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
We could however change catalyst to accept a stage3 and perform an |
| 31 |
update, perl-cleaner, python-updater, revdep-rebuild,... before |
| 32 |
commencing with the build process, but I feel that is a step better done |
| 33 |
by hand. It would also need to wait for catalyst to move to using |
| 34 |
emerge/portage through the api. From there it could get the list of |
| 35 |
atoms to be updated and handle any calls on an as needed basis to |
| 36 |
perl-cleaner, etc.. That would also require me to complete the |
| 37 |
public_api work I was doing for portage. |
Archives