From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 970 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2004 13:18:59 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 23 Oct 2004 13:18:59 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CLLnP-0006oF-2S for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:18:59 +0000 Received: (qmail 3188 invoked by uid 89); 23 Oct 2004 13:18:57 +0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 10111 invoked from network); 23 Oct 2004 13:18:57 +0000 Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:18:51 +0200 From: Marius Mauch To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Message-ID: <20041023151851.7fe58f1a@andy.genone.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <20041023121715.78153.qmail@web41524.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041023121715.78153.qmail@web41524.mail.yahoo.com> Organization: Gentoo Linux X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 0.9.12b (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) X-Face: H@&[wkk?l:Zx:8i_5bViK&{Vz{c{~r),^&:v/r#+X5dmfA6qCl)~'Ul{"&06Q1[05.%v&c>je5R{=xLnx^=~lN~rO0xuR~~NY)CX\"Nc4$9CBPwDl-.pYuVeGdir86L@\:j?7@%Ej2?Wi-Y0=1]T14ce0w79Bckk[*ti{;iA"{;I}&E~.msRBsBS)N!CS4Gd|_UR Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; boundary="Signature=_Sat__23_Oct_2004_15_18_51_+0200_.oT/QLm/3aS+ijJc" X-Provags-ID: kundenserver.de abuse@kundenserver.de auth:7e6c91d1b14dbccceb2f2166522fa0f6 Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] two remarks on portage-2.0.51-r2 X-Archives-Salt: d9faaa31-5b87-4810-a32c-9dc3b8e4a88b X-Archives-Hash: 9585672afe97f96bf780a0b6b9eee98c --Signature=_Sat__23_Oct_2004_15_18_51_+0200_.oT/QLm/3aS+ijJc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 10/23/04 Pablo De Napoli wrote: > 2) emerge ebuild by path > > Acording to the man page, this is broken, however it is the most > obvious way to specify an ebuild, isn't it? > > Why is this feature broken, could anybody find out? It never really worked. It did a lookup from the given filename in the portage tree and converted the filename to a cpv entry (as most portage functions only deal with cpv entries and not full filenames). This means that in some situations portage used a different ebuild than you specified. It also had several side effects that aren't documented and caused bogus bugreports. > I think is very important to keep the quality of portage to the > highest standards, so I suggest not to realese as stable a version > with important features broken. To keep the quality we added those warnings. These features (I don't consider them important) were always broken, to fix them we'd have to re-implement them completely and make several API changes. Marius --Signature=_Sat__23_Oct_2004_15_18_51_+0200_.oT/QLm/3aS+ijJc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBelo/WzrL1pM7SNcRAqpvAJ99ISsRtX758x/dTFAGPKbiyxakIgCdEX1M RoWaEgciBIccCFa3A4eHPrI= =NIvT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Sat__23_Oct_2004_15_18_51_+0200_.oT/QLm/3aS+ijJc--