Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [Bug 110386] Unable to remerge any package with -K (rc5 and rc6)
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:36:15
Message-Id: 4361FEF9.2070902@gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [Bug 110386] Unable to remerge any package with -K (rc5 and rc6) by Brian Harring
1 Brian Harring wrote:
2 > On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:50:02PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
3 >
4 >>On Wednesday 26 October 2005 23:56, Jason Stubbs wrote:
5 >>
6 >>>I've attached a quickly thrown together patch for it, which works here, but
7 >>>we really need to get this whole thing down pat. Perhaps usage of doebuild
8 >>>without specifying tree should be deprecated and the code audited for any
9 >>>usage without it? Making tree a keyword parameter will break too many
10 >>>external things so that's not really an option...
11 >>
12 >>Updated patch; I missed a call to merge(). I really don't like this patch
13 >>though because it touches way too much stuff. Anybody have any ideas for a
14 >>better way of doing it?
15 >
16 > Offhand, don't pass mytree around like that; pass it into the
17 > constructor, assign to the obj's namespace, and have treelink pass the
18 > saved value into doebuild.
19 >
20 > That's how I did it in 2.1 at least; been a long while, but don't
21 > recall any major issues with that route. Plus side, heck of a lot
22 > less modification to methods signatures, just the objects behaviour.
23 > ~harring
24
25 I adapted Jason's patch to go along with the dblink.treetype bit from 2.1 and it seems to work alright. The only notable difference from Jason's patch is that tree=self.treetype is passed into doebuild in any case for preinst and postinst (following the lead of 2.1).
26
27 Zac

Attachments

File name MIME type
dblink-treetype.patch text/x-patch

Replies