From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1E2OOf-0000fD-86 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 07:19:37 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j797IaP5025504; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 07:18:36 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j797Ia5l032217 for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 07:18:36 GMT Received: from adsl-67-39-48-198.dsl.milwwi.ameritech.net ([67.39.48.198] helo=nightcrawler) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1E2OO6-00053L-FZ for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 07:19:02 +0000 Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 02:19:29 -0500 From: Brian Harring To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] PATCH: properly handle metadata transfer on first sync of an empty tree (#96410) Message-ID: <20050809071928.GA21770@nightcrawler> References: <200507212313.36804.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <200507220849.43700.jstubbs@gentoo.org> <20050805033118.GM21865@exodus> <200508052020.54209.jstubbs@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200508052020.54209.jstubbs@gentoo.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-Archives-Salt: 9272dff0-fbc4-44d9-b504-c019413e5bc5 X-Archives-Hash: 41d607cd5515ff5c2c8e2e47779f2629 --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 08:20:52PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Friday 05 August 2005 12:31, Brian D. Harring wrote: > > Hola all, patch (incvs now) to fix up a traceback on first sync with > > an empty tree; bug #96410 > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D96410 > > > > The fix isn't exactly what I'd call pretty (creating an intermediate > > portdbapi and config instance to do the updates), but it's a corner > > case; config's categories is a bit of a hack, and tearing it out in > > stable is more work then worth... so this. > > > > Either way, it's attached, poke at it kindly :) >=20 > You know the caching fairly well, so I'll ask rather than check. ;) >=20 > How does this affect the new version of portage check that follows? Will= =20 > that use the old cache, find that it's out of date and then regen it? The ugly inlining of code in portage.py makes this play nice actually,=20 due to the forced reload of portage prior to checking for an updated=20 portage being available (specifically, the config instance is=20 recreated). ~harring --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFC+FkAvdBxRoA3VU0RAmk2AJ9wNtLT3qPfiUmhvhK8rEv3hghnXQCfa45V 6dNnjRP2COe0eUz9L+4U7Mo= =2Lws -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nFreZHaLTZJo0R7j-- -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list