List Archive: gentoo-portage-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
Marius Mauch wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:13:13 +0100
>jb benoit <benoitj@...> wrote:
>>$ diff -Naur portage.py.sav portage.py
>>--- portage.py.sav 2005-11-17 15:32:20.000000000 +0100
>>+++ portage.py 2005-11-17 15:15:24.000000000 +0100
>>@@ -3866,6 +3866,42 @@
>> return None
>>+ global portdb
>>+ mysplit = catpkgsplit(mycpv)
>>+ if not mysplit:
>>+ raise ValueError("invalid CPV: %s" % mycpv)
>>+ if not portdb.cpv_exists(mycpv):
>>+ raise KeyError("CPV %s does not exist" % mycpv)
>>+ #gathering data
>>+ mygroups = portdb.aux_get(mycpv, ["KEYWORDS"]).split()
>>+ myarch = settings["ARCH"]
>>+ # keyword chercking
>>+ for gp in mygroups:
>>+ if gp=="~"+myarch:
>>+ test = 1
>>+ # package.mask checking
>>+ if test == 1:
>>+ if maskdict.has_key(mycp):
>>+ for x in maskdict[mycp]:
>>+ if mycpv in
>>+ return rValue
>> def getmaskingstatus(mycpv):
>> global portdb
>> mysplit = catpkgsplit(mycpv)
>- Doesn't work with binpkgs (though that's probably also a problem in
>- there is more than keyword and p.mask for masking (profiles)
>- the function name is misleading (you're not checking the actual
>- you don't check for non-~arch and package.mask'ed packages
>- you don't check for non-$ARCH ACCEPT_KEYWORDS/package.keywords entries
>- other semantic issues I' not going to repeat
>- completely useless without docs.
If this can help, i'll respond to some of your question :
My aims is very different to the one of getmaskingstatus().
I don't have to check everywere for the status :
The package which status I'm searching were already checked by
This is very important.
The only 2 thinks I implemented was to search :
if the package beeing checked is an unstable version,
which can be done only by looking at the supported keywords in the ebuild.
if the package beeing checked is a masked version.
I only need to check is the package was masked in packages.mask,
don't mind the reason for which it's now unmasked.
If you thinks this can be usefull, I can made the corection needed.
If you think this is just a bunch of trash, just tell me to forget, but
i'll miss this feature.
>We didn't say "it's complicated" for no reason ;)
>PS: But thanks anyway, looking at getmaskingstatus() reminds me of
>removing the stupid -* message.
email@example.com mailing list