Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] repoman: ignore unadded files when possible (bug 559636)

[Brian Dolbec]

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 15:47:50 -0400
Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o>
> wrote:
> > On Sat,  5 Sep 2015 07:31:27 -0700
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
> >
> >> Unadded files that are excluded from the Manifest are safe to
> >> ignore.
> >>
> >> X-Gentoo-Bug: 559636
> >> X-Gentoo-Bug-url: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559636
> >> ---
> >> [PATCH v2] fixes it to properly check the find_invalid_path_char
> >> return value bin/repoman | 6 +++++-
> >>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/bin/repoman b/bin/repoman
> >> index 1ba7841..2c42c2d 100755
> >> --- a/bin/repoman
> >> +++ b/bin/repoman
> >> @@ -2570,7 +2570,11 @@ else:
> >>       if myunadded:
> >>               for x in range(len(myunadded)-1, -1, -1):
> >>                       xs = myunadded[x].split("/")
> >> -                     if xs[-1] == "files":
> >> +                     if
> >> repo_config.find_invalid_path_char(myunadded[x]) != -1:
> >> +                             # The Manifest excludes this file,
> >> +                             # so it's safe to ignore.
> >> +                             del myunadded[x]
> >> +                     elif xs[-1] == "files":
> >>                               print("!!! files dir is not added!
> >> Please correct this.") sys.exit(-1)
> >>                       elif xs[-1] == "Manifest":
> >
> > uhg :( not another patch to "old" repoman code.
> >
> > I really want to get the rewrite code into portage master BEFORE any
> > more patches, or changes are applied.  There has been enough
> > changes, that even the simplest small change can make it a rebase
> > nightmare.
> >
> > At this point, I will only accept patches on the rewrite
>
> The rewrite has been sitting there for the better part of a year. Get
> on with the merging already!
>
> Also, please see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557864, which
> is the only regression I have found so far.
>

Doh! I replied too soon, that is the very bug this patch was for, but
to the old code...

I'll port it to the rewrite then.

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>