From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7844138825 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:28:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F710E081D; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:28:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 99F2CE07DB for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:28:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.7] (ip70-181-96-121.oc.oc.cox.net [70.181.96.121]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 927EB340256 for ; Mon, 10 Nov 2014 05:28:17 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <54604CEF.2090507@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2014 21:28:15 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.8.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: [PATCH] unprivileged mode: generate PORTAGE_DEPCACHEDIR References: <1415575480-19505-1-git-send-email-zmedico@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 3f66ae66-3f51-454c-aacb-998096b22410 X-Archives-Hash: 2a2839357d0af3507c6009d9aafa70dc On 11/09/2014 08:58 PM, Duncan wrote: > Zac Medico posted on Sun, 09 Nov 2014 15:24:40 -0800 as excerpted: > >> [...] then automatically make PORTAGE_DEPCACHEDIR relative to >> the current target root (which should always be writable for >> unprivileged mode). > > Why? The "unprivileged mode" is similar to existing prefix support. The "unprivileged mode" is basically useless unless your target root is writable. Therefore, it's a sane assumption. It won't affect you unless you use the new "unprivileged mode". If you do happen to use it, then you will probably appreciate this patch. As far as I can tell, the following discussion is about a bug that is essentially unrelated to my proposed patch: > Why does emerge --pretend need a writable target root in the first place, > or it dies a horrible death (traceback)? > > I keep root read-only by default, making it writable when I'm updating. > When I'm simply doing an emerge --pretend, however, whether simply to > satisfy my own curiosity or because I'm posting a reply to some other > user where the output from emerge --pretend would be useful, why does > emerge die a horrible death and traceback, when all I wanted was > --pretend output that shouldn't be changing the target root at all and > thus shouldn't /need/ a writable target root in the first place? > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=490732 > > FWIW, $PORTAGE_TMPDIR is writable, as is /run/lock (and thus > /var/run/lock). In both tracebacks in the bug, it's a *.portage_lockfile > that's not writable. Why are those not in (possibly some subdir of) > /run/lock in the first place, or in $PORTAGE_TMPDIR, given the temporary > nature of the files? At least for --pretend. That bug should be easy to fix. We just need to handle the readonly case. -- Thanks, Zac