Re: [gentoo-dev] CONFIG_PROTECT and ROOT!='/'

[Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net>]

maillog: 15/03/2005-08:26:49(-0600): Brian Jackson types
> On 12:56:00 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net> wrote:
> > maillog: 14/03/2005-22:24:24(-0600): Brian Jackson types
> > >  On Mon, 2005-03-14 at 13:21 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > >  Vitaly Ivanov wrote:
> > > > >  I found the comments of Nicholas Jones in bug
> > > > >  http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415
> > > > >>>  Portage makes the assumption that if you're installing
> > > > >>>  into a new root, then you're building a system and
> > > > >>>  shouldn't bother with config protection. It's not
> > > > >>>  documented either way, so it's undefined behavior.
> > > >
> > > >  I disagree with that logic, because people may be maintaining
> > > >  systems in a ROOT with modified config files. Updating those
> > > >  systems trashes the files. Thank you for pointing out this
> > > >  behavior now, because it walks all over plans I have for a
> > >  diskless cluster.
> > >  I mentioned this to the portage guys the other day. Either they
> > >  didn't care, or they didn't hear me. Either way, probably need to
> > >  file a bug about it (or stir up that other one).
> >
> > Alright! The bug is getting attention, and it even hasn't been a year!
> >
> > I posted a patch at http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=52415 that
> > addresses the issue.  You can directly do
> >
> > wget http://bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=53496 -O - | patch -p0
> >
> > which will in turn screw your portage.py, but hopefully for the best.
> >
> > As I see that there are more people who are interested in the bug, I
> > am expecting at least some to trust me enough as to try out the patch
> > and in turn make some noise (yeah, noise is what we need) when it
> > makes them happy.
> >
> > The other problem that bothers me (that is: reading configuration
> > files from $ROOT) seems to be worked on. At least, there are
> > comments like:
> 
> I have a bug filed for that too, but it's probably going to be a while
> before it's fixed. From what I've been told, it's not trivial to fix it
> because some of the config stuff isn't very well abstracted.

It isn't? Are we talking about the same thing? After all, the locations
are just variables, that only need to be prefixed with something. Could
we get some input from whoever told you this?

> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=73350

-- 
 )   Georgi Georgiev    ) Sure he's sharp as a razor ... he's a two-    )
(     chutz@gg3.net    (  dimensional pinhead!                         (
 )  +81(90)6266-1163    )                                               )
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list