* Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'
@ 2005-03-15 14:26 99% ` Brian Jackson
0 siblings, 0 replies; 1+ results
From: Brian Jackson @ 2005-03-15 14:26 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev
On 12:56:00 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net> wrote:
> maillog: 14/03/2005-22:24:24(-0600): Brian Jackson types
> > On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:21 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > Vitaly Ivanov wrote:
> > > > I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug
> > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
> > > >>> Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing
> > > >>> into a new root, then you're building a system and
> > > >>> shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not
> > > >>> documented either way, so it's undefined behavior.
> > >
> > > I disagree with that logic, because people may be maintaining
> > > systems in a ROOT with modified config files. Updating those
> > > systems trashes the files. Thank you for pointing out this
> > > behavior now, because it walks all over plans I have for a
> > diskless cluster.
> > I mentioned this to the portage guys the other day. Either they
> > didn't care, or they didn't hear me. Either way, probably need to
> > file a bug about it (or stir up that other one).
>
> Alright! The bug is getting attention, and it even hasn't been a year!
>
> I posted a patch at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415 that
> addresses the issue. You can directly do
>
> wget http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=53496 -O - | patch -p0
>
> which will in turn screw your portage.py, but hopefully for the best.
>
> As I see that there are more people who are interested in the bug, I
> am expecting at least some to trust me enough as to try out the patch
> and in turn make some noise (yeah, noise is what we need) when it
> makes them happy.
>
> The other problem that bothers me (that is: reading configuration
> files from $ROOT) seems to be worked on. At least, there are
> comments like:
I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a while
before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not trivial to fix it
because some of the config stuff isn't very well abstracted.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350
--Iggy
>
> # XXX: This should depend on ROOT?
> if os.path.exists("/"+CUSTOM_PROFILE_PATH):
> self.user_profile_dir = os.path.normpath("/"+"///"+CUSTOM_PROF
> ILE_PATH)
> self.profiles.append(self.user_profile_dir[:])
>
> ...
>
> # XXX: Should depend on root?
> self.mygcfg=getconfig("/"+MAKE_CONF_FILE,allow_sourcing=True)
> if self.mygcfg == None:
> self.mygcfg = {}
>
>
> Which I guess means that it will sooner or later make it to the next
> level in some form.
>
> chutz out
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [relevance 99%]
Results 1-1 of 1 | reverse | options above
-- pct% links below jump to the message on this page, permalinks otherwise --
2005-03-14 16:45 [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/' Vitaly Ivanov
2005-03-14 21:21 ` Donnie Berkholz
2005-03-15 4:24 ` Brian Jackson
2005-03-15 6:56 ` Georgi Georgiev
2005-03-15 14:26 99% ` Brian Jackson
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox