| 1 |
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:47:40 +0100 |
| 2 |
jb benoit <benoitj@×××××.fr> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Marius Mauch wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> >- Doesn't work with binpkgs (though that's probably also a problem in |
| 7 |
> >getmaskingstatus() itself) |
| 8 |
> >- there is more than keyword and p.mask for masking (profiles) |
| 9 |
> >- the function name is misleading (you're not checking the actual |
| 10 |
> >masking status) |
| 11 |
> >- you don't check for non-~arch and package.mask'ed packages |
| 12 |
> >- you don't check for non-$ARCH ACCEPT_KEYWORDS/package.keywords |
| 13 |
> >entries |
| 14 |
> >- other semantic issues I' not going to repeat |
| 15 |
> >- completely useless without docs. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> If this can help, i'll respond to some of your question : |
| 20 |
> My aims is very different to the one of getmaskingstatus(). |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Not really, you basically just want to ignore parts of the local config, |
| 23 |
that's all. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I don't have to check everywere for the status : |
| 26 |
> The package which status I'm searching were already checked by |
| 27 |
> getmaskingstatus(). |
| 28 |
> This is very important. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Wrong. getmaskingstatus() doesn't decide if a package is masked |
| 31 |
(gvivsible() does that), it only checks for possible reasons. |
| 32 |
And if this should be considered for inclusion you *have* to check for |
| 33 |
all possible masks (though with profiles this gets tricky). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
> The only 2 thinks I implemented was to search : |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> if the package beeing checked is an unstable version, |
| 38 |
> which can be done only by looking at the supported keywords in the |
| 39 |
> ebuild. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Again wrong. Example: |
| 42 |
- ebuild foo has KEYWORDS="~x86" |
| 43 |
- my system has ARCH="amd64" |
| 44 |
- in package.keywords I have a line "foo ~x86" |
| 45 |
So while this package isn't even marked as "testing" for my arch your |
| 46 |
patch would treat it as "stable" (at least that's how I would interpret |
| 47 |
the output). This example is rather common. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
> if the package beeing checked is a masked version. |
| 50 |
> I only need to check is the package was masked in packages.mask, |
| 51 |
> don't mind the reason for which it's now unmasked. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
I didn't say anything about checking why it's unmasked, maybe you |
| 54 |
misunderstood the following comment: |
| 55 |
"you don't check for non-~arch and package.mask'ed packages" |
| 56 |
What I mean is when a package is marked stable but in package.mask, your |
| 57 |
patch simply ignores that (instead of adding a "M" status). |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
> If you thinks this can be usefull, I can made the corection needed. |
| 60 |
> If you think this is just a bunch of trash, just tell me to forget, |
| 61 |
> but i'll miss this feature. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Well, not trash, but it has a ton of semantic issues (likely more than |
| 64 |
just the few I posted above) to resolve first making this much more |
| 65 |
complicated than you probably think. |
| 66 |
That's probably not important for you or 90% of all users, but if we |
| 67 |
add such a feature it has to work for at least 98% of all users |
| 68 |
(ideally of course for 100%). |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Marius |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
-- |
| 73 |
Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be |
| 76 |
Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. |
Archives