Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] repoman: ignore unadded files when possible (bug 559636)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 22:05:05
Message-Id: 20150905150459.5b1667fe.dolsen@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] repoman: ignore unadded files when possible (bug 559636) by Brian Dolbec
1 On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 14:24:37 -0700
2 Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 15:47:50 -0400
5 > Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote:
6 >
7 > > On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o>
8 > > wrote:
9 > > > On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 07:31:27 -0700
10 > > > Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote:
11 > > >
12 > > >> Unadded files that are excluded from the Manifest are safe to
13 > > >> ignore.
14 > > >>
15 > > >> X-Gentoo-Bug: 559636
16 > > >> X-Gentoo-Bug-url: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=559636
17 > > >> ---
18 > > >> [PATCH v2] fixes it to properly check the find_invalid_path_char
19 > > >> return value bin/repoman | 6 +++++-
20 > > >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
21 > > >>
22 > > >> diff --git a/bin/repoman b/bin/repoman
23 > > >> index 1ba7841..2c42c2d 100755
24 > > >> --- a/bin/repoman
25 > > >> +++ b/bin/repoman
26 > > >> @@ -2570,7 +2570,11 @@ else:
27 > > >> if myunadded:
28 > > >> for x in range(len(myunadded)-1, -1, -1):
29 > > >> xs = myunadded[x].split("/")
30 > > >> - if xs[-1] == "files":
31 > > >> + if
32 > > >> repo_config.find_invalid_path_char(myunadded[x]) != -1:
33 > > >> + # The Manifest excludes this file,
34 > > >> + # so it's safe to ignore.
35 > > >> + del myunadded[x]
36 > > >> + elif xs[-1] == "files":
37 > > >> print("!!! files dir is not added!
38 > > >> Please correct this.") sys.exit(-1)
39 > > >> elif xs[-1] == "Manifest":
40 > > >
41 > > > uhg :( not another patch to "old" repoman code.
42 > > >
43 > > > I really want to get the rewrite code into portage master BEFORE
44 > > > any more patches, or changes are applied. There has been enough
45 > > > changes, that even the simplest small change can make it a rebase
46 > > > nightmare.
47 > > >
48 > > > At this point, I will only accept patches on the rewrite
49 > >
50 > > The rewrite has been sitting there for the better part of a year.
51 > > Get on with the merging already!
52 > >
53 > > Also, please see https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557864,
54 > > which is the only regression I have found so far.
55 > >
56 >
57 > Doh! I replied too soon, that is the very bug this patch was for, but
58 > to the old code...
59 >
60 > I'll port it to the rewrite then.
61 >
62
63 HA! turns out this patch applies to virgin code as far as the rewrite
64 was concerned.
65
66 It applied and rebased without a problem.
67
68 I pushed it to the repoman branch for more testing
69
70
71 --
72 Brian Dolbec <dolsen>