Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [Request] Allow emerge to continue emerging unaffected packages on failure.

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

felix@×××××××.com wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 06:29:08PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>> felix@×××××××.com wrote:
>>> Pardon me if I am wrong, but I want this too, and to me the simplest
>>> analogy is to make.  If some targets fail, make keeps on building the
>>> ones it can, until it is left with no buildable targets.  I too have
>>> developed a wrapper using --resume --skipfirst, but that feels like a
>>> kluge.  What I would like is an emerge option to generate a Makefile
>>> for output (-M looks available on a quick man check).  Then instead of
>>> emerge -ptuvDN, I would use -MtuvDN, and run make at my leisure.  I am
>>> incredibly naive about the inner workings of portage, but since it has
>>> dependencies, it does not seem entirely farfetched to generate a Makefile.
>>>
>> Why not just take the features from make and add them to portage
>> itself? That way you can just treat the portage configurations as
>> the "Makefile".
>
> If you mean make the entire portage tree into one big Makefile, how do
> you represent sources which change to trigger making?  Chaning USE
> flags is another trigger, and various options to emerge have their own
> effect on which builds are needed.
>
> If you mean imitate make's build process in portage, that seems like a
> lot of wheel reinventing.
>
> An advantage of generating Makefile output is it can replace the -p
> pretend option, and it lets you fine tune it by editing.  For
> instance, my system right now wants to throw out mDNSmumble needed by
> KDE something in favor of avahi needed by the latest pidgin.  So I
> save emerge output, edit away the avahi build and pidgin rebuild, and
> have a specific list to build.  I cannot let emerge have its way; it
> blocks on avahi and mDNSmumble.  A Makefile would have the same
> conflict, but make would ignore that part and do the rest, or I could
> edit out the conflict.
>

Why not modify the ebuilds to resolve the conflicts (use
PORTDIR_OVERLAY)? Then if your modifications are worth sharing, you
can submit them back to Gentoo.

Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkhLVwsACgkQ/ejvha5XGaO+ogCgmIlbhy9mEy9wE4BwSAtAs1/8
mOUAn2FTElKwEYiMuSxjNNDyf/i1milC
=e+09
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o mailing list