| 1 |
On 11/24/2015 04:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 24 Nov 2015 15:58, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 11/24/2015 03:11 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> This does not support fowners just yet as we'll need to queue/dequeue |
| 5 |
>>> the accounts on the fly. |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> X-Gentoo-Bug: 566614 |
| 8 |
>>> X-Gentoo-Bug-URL: https://bugs.gentoo.org/566614 |
| 9 |
>>> --- |
| 10 |
>>> man/make.conf.5 | 4 ++++ |
| 11 |
>>> pym/portage/const.py | 1 + |
| 12 |
>>> pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 22 +++++++++------------- |
| 13 |
>>> pym/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py | 9 ++++++--- |
| 14 |
>>> 4 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> In pym/repoman/qa_data.py you need to add userinstall to valid_restrict. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Otherwise, looks good. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> suggestions for having fowners queue data ? should it just write to |
| 21 |
> a file in $T and then have portage read commands out of that ? |
| 22 |
> -mike |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Yeah, that sounds good. A list of fowners/fperms calls should suffice. |
| 26 |
We can parse it and translate it to python calls. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
The data should be dequeued inside ${D}, so that the merge code can |
| 29 |
handle things like administrative overrides: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=396153 |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Thanks, |
| 34 |
Zac |
Archives