| 1 |
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:08:49PM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hi Brian, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> I'm using latest 3.0-cache-backport-experimental-7.patch since a |
| 5 |
> few days, and i've noticed a minor annoyance: |
| 6 |
> - i'm using an overlay portage ebuild numbered 2.0.20051024 (a |
| 7 |
> patched SVN snapshot) |
| 8 |
> - when i sync, i always get the "An update to portage is available." |
| 9 |
> at the end, which is obviously not true (my overlay ebuild being the |
| 10 |
> best visible version) |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> In bin/emerge, the chunk of code where it happens is like this: |
| 13 |
Correction to that code, in conjunction with the cache patch. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
+ else: |
| 16 |
+ pdb = portage.db[portage.root]["porttree"].dbapi |
| 17 |
portage.portageexit() |
| 18 |
reload(portage) |
| 19 |
- mybestpv=portage.portdb.xmatch("bestmatch-visible","sys-apps/portage") |
| 20 |
+ mybestpv=pdb.xmatch("bestmatch-visible","sys-apps/portage") |
| 21 |
mypvs=portage.best(portage.db[portage.root]["vartree"].dbapi.match("sys-apps/portage")) |
| 22 |
chk_updated_cfg_files() |
| 23 |
if(mybestpv != mypvs): |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> I've added a line to print mybestpv and mypvs in the message, and |
| 27 |
> surprisingly i got: |
| 28 |
> * Best is and installed is sys-apps/portage-2.0.20051024 |
| 29 |
> Obviously, mybestpv is an empty string here, and i don't understand why. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Any idea? |
| 32 |
Yeah, 2.0.20051024 > 2.0.53_rc7 :) |
| 33 |
>>> portage.pkgcmp(*[portage.pkgsplit(x) for x in ["sys-apps/portage-2.0.20051024", "sys-apps/portage-2.0.53_rc7"]]) |
| 34 |
1 |
| 35 |
>>> portage.pkgcmp(*[portage.pkgsplit(x) for x in ["sys-apps/portage-2.0.53_rc8", "sys-apps/portage-2.0.53_rc7"]]) |
| 36 |
1 |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
As to why mybestpv is empty? You've stumbled on a bug in portage, or |
| 39 |
something locally is weird. If I had to guess, I'd put my finger on |
| 40 |
reload(portage) not working as people expect. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
The reload hack that is being used there is pretty crappy offhand, |
| 43 |
since it's not exactly sane for python code that uses dynamic imports |
| 44 |
(portage has always used __import__ to get the cache backend db). If |
| 45 |
you hunt through what portageexit actually does... well... it does |
| 46 |
pretty much nothing. All of the code that nukes caches/etc is atexit |
| 47 |
based last I looked, although that shouldn't matter since a reload |
| 48 |
_should_ recreate the portage namespace. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Meanwhile, the change above should be considered regardless of |
| 51 |
this bug, since the check of "blah was updated" should really be |
| 52 |
limited to the synced repo imo. |
| 53 |
~harring |
Archives