Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o>
To: gentoo-core@g.o
Cc: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Portage: good news and bad news
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 01:48:30
Message-Id: 1026023935.29116.94.camel@inventor.gentoo.org
1 Hi Devs:
2
3 Bad news: I found a significant bug in Portage 2.0.10 and earlier that
4 could cause masking to work improperly, particularly if a package has a
5 ~ entry in the profile's packages file.
6
7 Good news: I've fixed the problem in Portage 2.0.11 by rewriting
8 portage.py's portdbapi xmatch() and visible() methods. This has
9 resulted in a 44% speed-up in dependency calculations over Portage
10 2.0.10. If you thought things were fast before...
11
12 More good news: I've improved repoman to differentiate between
13 user-visible ebuilds with bad dependencies and masked ebuilds with bad
14 dependencies. When checking dependencies, user-visible ebuilds'
15 dependencies are only matched against user-visible ebuilds. But when
16 masked ebuilds are checked, deps are satisfied using *all* available
17 ebuilds. This should eliminate virtually all false positives in the
18 repoman DEPEND and RDEPEND QA tests. Type "repoman --help" for more
19 information on these new changes.
20
21 Enjoy!
22
23 --
24 Daniel Robbins
25 Chief Architect, Gentoo Linux
26 http://www.gentoo.org

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage: good news and bad news Terje Kvernes <terjekv@××××××××.no>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage: good news and bad news Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@××××××.nl>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage: good news and bad news Rigo <rigo@××××.nl>