Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Versioning the tree

[Andrew Gaffney]

Steve Long wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> From your post we need to add:
>> - strip all USE flags that aren't used from use.mask (per-profile)
>> - strip all packages that aren't available from package.mask
>> (per-profile)
>
> What language is the script implemented in?

The current script is actually 2 scripts: a python script that I wrote that 
interfaces with the portage API and a bash script that wolf31o2 wrote that takes 
the output from my script and does the cleanup.

Last night, with the help of ferringb, I started working on a replacement script 
that uses the pkgcore API. The portage-based script takes quite a while to run, 
and gets it wrong if there are any p.mask'd stable packages on any arch or other 
weird things. The pkgcore-based script actually uses the profiles properly and 
runs over the entire tree with all the "stable" profiles (according to 
profiles.desc) in 1m1.869s (on my box). I'll probably end up combining the 
scripts and doing the cleanup in python to make things easier.

> Wrt security updates, is it possible to tie into GLSAs so that we could
> automate updating packages that need it? By updating I mean adding the
> ebuilds and any dependencies (or dependants that might require updating.)

I'm not sure this is the best idea.

> Caleb Cushing wrote:
>> .. isn't it possible only to sync certain
>> parts of the tree using excludes. maybe some additional functionality
>> saying only sync package X for updates.
>
> Would that help in terms of having say, up to date GUI packages, or is it
> just easier to use overlays?

Overlays are definitely best here.

-- 
Andrew Gaffney                            http://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/
Gentoo Linux Developer                                   Installer Project
Today's lesson in political correctness:      "Go asphyxiate on a phallus"
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list