Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH] unprivileged mode: generate PORTAGE_DEPCACHEDIR
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 04:58:39
Message-Id: pan$698a0$42e89d7f$31c4e106$b11b4ae4@cox.net
In Reply to: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] unprivileged mode: generate PORTAGE_DEPCACHEDIR by Zac Medico
1 Zac Medico posted on Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:24:40 -0800 as excerpted:
2
3 > [...] then automatically make PORTAGE_DEPCACHEDIR relative to
4 > the current target root (which should always be writable for
5 > unprivileged mode).
6
7 Why?
8
9 Why does emerge --pretend need a writable target root in the first place,
10 or it dies a horrible death (traceback)?
11
12 I keep root read-only by default, making it writable when I'm updating.
13 When I'm simply doing an emerge --pretend, however, whether simply to
14 satisfy my own curiosity or because I'm posting a reply to some other
15 user where the output from emerge --pretend would be useful, why does
16 emerge die a horrible death and traceback, when all I wanted was
17 --pretend output that shouldn't be changing the target root at all and
18 thus shouldn't /need/ a writable target root in the first place?
19
20 https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490732
21
22 FWIW, $PORTAGE_TMPDIR is writable, as is /run/lock (and thus
23 /var/run/lock). In both tracebacks in the bug, it's a *.portage_lockfile
24 that's not writable. Why are those not in (possibly some subdir of)
25 /run/lock in the first place, or in $PORTAGE_TMPDIR, given the temporary
26 nature of the files? At least for --pretend.
27
28 --
29 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
30 "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
31 and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman

Replies