| 1 |
On 01/06/2015 08:53 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 00:07:19 -0800 |
| 3 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> This adds support for a new --sync-submodule option to both emerge and |
| 6 |
>> emaint. When this option is used with the sync action, only the |
| 7 |
>> selected submodules are synced. Each submodule is referenced using an |
| 8 |
>> abstract identifier, which serves to hide the implementation details |
| 9 |
>> involving the precise locations of specific submodules within each |
| 10 |
>> repository. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> Currently, --sync-submodule has no effect for sync protocols other |
| 13 |
>> than rsync, but the new SyncBase._get_submodule_paths() method will |
| 14 |
>> be useful for implementing support in other SyncBase subclasses. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> X-Gentoo-Bug: 534070 |
| 17 |
>> X-Gentoo-Bug-URL: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=534070 |
| 18 |
>> --- |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> portage.process.spawn(command, diff --git |
| 21 |
>> a/pym/portage/sync/syncbase.py b/pym/portage/sync/syncbase.py index |
| 22 |
>> 94d4aab..fcde51f 100644 --- a/pym/portage/sync/syncbase.py |
| 23 |
>> +++ b/pym/portage/sync/syncbase.py |
| 24 |
>> @@ -12,6 +12,11 @@ import os |
| 25 |
>> import portage |
| 26 |
>> from portage.util import writemsg_level |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>> +_SUBMODULE_PATH_MAP = { |
| 29 |
>> + 'glsa': 'metadata/glsa', |
| 30 |
>> + 'news': 'metadata/news', |
| 31 |
>> + 'profiles': 'profiles', |
| 32 |
>> +} |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
>> |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> It mostly looks good, but... |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> I don't like the idea of hard-coding this in the base class. |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> I think this should be configurable per-repo or at least per repo type. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
The paths should be the same as long as the repo conforms to existing |
| 43 |
conventions. If the repo doesn't conform to existing conventions, then |
| 44 |
existing tools won't know where to look for the glsa, news, and profiles |
| 45 |
directories. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> This patch clears the way for other repo types to have sub-modules, but |
| 48 |
> will they be the same mapping for a git tree with those as |
| 49 |
> sub-modules? Maybe I'm just not following how the system works |
| 50 |
> properly... |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Yes, they should use the same mappings, as explained above. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
> Alternatively...if the above is wrong/not feasible. In the |
| 55 |
> sync/__init__.py you have the choices hard-coded there independently of |
| 56 |
> these definitions above. I would prefer that one get it's options from |
| 57 |
> the other. Since syncbase.py is not gauranteed to be loaded, I would |
| 58 |
> think that the above be declared in the sync module's __init__.py and |
| 59 |
> imported or passed in here. Then the: |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> "choices": ("glsa", "news", "profiles"), |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> could become: |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> "choices": list(_SUBMODULE_PATH_MAP) |
| 66 |
> |
| 67 |
> Then there is only one place to edit as options or code change. |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
That's a good idea. I'll make a patch for that. |
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
Thanks, |
| 72 |
Zac |
Archives