| 1 |
On 10:14:14 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> maillog: 15/03/2005-08:26:49(-0600): Brian Jackson types |
| 3 |
> > On 12:56:00 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@×××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > maillog: 14/03/2005-22:24:24(-0600): Brian Jackson types |
| 5 |
> > > > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:21 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > Vitaly Ivanov wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > > > I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug |
| 8 |
> > > > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415 |
| 9 |
> > > > > >>> Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing |
| 10 |
> > > > > >>> into a new root, then you're building a system and |
| 11 |
> > > > > >>> shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not |
| 12 |
> > > > > >>> documented either way, so it's undefined behavior. |
| 13 |
> > > > > |
| 14 |
> > > > > I disagree with that logic, because people may be |
| 15 |
> > > > > maintaining systems in a ROOT with modified config files. |
| 16 |
> > > > > Updating those systems trashes the files. Thank you for |
| 17 |
> > > > > pointing out this behavior now, because it walks all over |
| 18 |
> > > > plans I have for a diskless cluster. |
| 19 |
> > > > I mentioned this to the portage guys the other day. Either |
| 20 |
> > > > they didn't care, or they didn't hear me. Either way, |
| 21 |
> > > > probably need to file a bug about it (or stir up that other |
| 22 |
> > > one). |
| 23 |
> > > Alright! The bug is getting attention, and it even hasn't been a |
| 24 |
> > > year! |
| 25 |
> > > I posted a patch at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415 |
| 26 |
> > > that addresses the issue. You can directly do |
| 27 |
> > > |
| 28 |
> > > wget http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=53496 -O - | patch |
| 29 |
> > > -p0 |
| 30 |
> > > which will in turn screw your portage.py, but hopefully for the |
| 31 |
> > > best. |
| 32 |
> > > As I see that there are more people who are interested in the |
| 33 |
> > > bug, I am expecting at least some to trust me enough as to try |
| 34 |
> > > out the patch and in turn make some noise (yeah, noise is what |
| 35 |
> > > we need) when it makes them happy. |
| 36 |
> > > |
| 37 |
> > > The other problem that bothers me (that is: reading configuration |
| 38 |
> > > files from $ROOT) seems to be worked on. At least, there are |
| 39 |
> > > comments like: |
| 40 |
> > |
| 41 |
> > I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a |
| 42 |
> > while before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not |
| 43 |
> > trivial to fix it because some of the config stuff isn't very well |
| 44 |
> abstracted. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> It isn't? Are we talking about the same thing? After all, the |
| 47 |
> locations are just variables, that only need to be prefixed with |
| 48 |
> something. Could we get some input from whoever told you this? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
make.conf is easy. The profile isn't as easy. /etc/portage isn't easy at |
| 51 |
all. That's the basics. You'd have to ask the portage guys for more in |
| 52 |
depth info. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
--Iggy |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350 |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-- |
| 60 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives