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

["Brian Jackson" <iggy@gentoo.org>]

On 10:14:14 am 2005-03-15 Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net> wrote:
> 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?

make.conf is easy. The profile isn't as easy. /etc/portage isn't easy at
all. That's the basics. You'd have to ask the portage guys for more in
depth info.

--Iggy

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

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list