From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-portage-dev+bounces-2265-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1LZfk5-0006sJ-AK
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:17:09 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CFCDCE0193;
Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:17:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from wf-out-1314.google.com (wf-out-1314.google.com [209.85.200.169])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95998E0193
for <gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:17:07 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wf-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id 29so3398911wff.10
for <gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:17:07 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-portage-dev+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-portage-dev+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-portage-dev+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-portage-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
Received: by 10.142.215.5 with SMTP id n5mr1801531wfg.201.1234937826992; Tue,
17 Feb 2009 22:17:06 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <489CC44C.3020309@gentoo.org>
References: <c4cdc1420808030703t165146a8oea24c3020c10462e@mail.gmail.com>
<489CC44C.3020309@gentoo.org>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 22:17:06 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: f4ed50f6a28999fc
Message-ID: <b41005390902172217r5e144595iff8ced6746e39015@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] missing-rebuild package set
From: Alec Warner <antarus@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Archives-Salt: 90b24a9f-4442-40b2-b156-d6a8aa37fc32
X-Archives-Hash: 1a2238c943b5d5bfa80c83c7ed2fce6a
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Lucian Poston wrote:
>> The following patchs add a library dependency rebuilder as a package
>> set, @missing-rebuild, to portage-2.2_rc6. Similar to the --library
>> flag in revdep-rebuild, the user can additionally emerge the set of
>> packages containing consumers of libraries matched by a (python)
>> regular expression; however, until a better solution is found, the
>> regexp must be passed through the LIBRARY environment variable to
>> enable that feature.
>>
>> Known issues: I expect some false positives. I've inserted hard coded
>> directory/library masks for those I've found. I noticed a situation
>> that required a second emerge due to a provider package satisfying 3
>> conditions: 1) the package is installed and an updated version is
>> available in its slot, 2) the updated version is in the set due to a
>> dependency of another package (or it may contains a broken binary),
>> and 3) a consumer package of a library within the updated package is
>> emerged before the updated dependency is emerged, causing a package to
>> be compiled against the old library before the library version
>> changes. I guess that if a package is already installed, it is not
>> necessarily placed before its consumer packages in the merge order.
>>
>> Attached are patches for pym/portage/dbapi/vartree.py,
>> pym/portage/sets/libs.py and /usr/share/portage/config/sets.conf.
>> These can also be found in the project's repository:
>> http://repo.or.cz/w/revdep-rebuild-reimplementation.git?a=tree;h=refs/heads/rc1;hb=refs/heads/rc1
>
> Thanks, I've merged your LinkageMap changes.
>
> Side note: I suspect that we might be able to improve efficiency in
> LinkageMap path comparisons by comparing tuples of device and inode
> numbers instead of using realpath. We currently use the device/inode
> number approach to test identity of paths in dblink.isowner().
As it is time for gSoC 2009; I want to inquire at the status of this
code integration.
Looking at HEAD it seems there are some changes left to merge. Is
this on the roadmap?
-Alec
>
>> I warmly welcome all feedback, in particular any suggestions to remove
>> the necessity of directory and library masks in /etc/revdep-rebuild/*,
>> which I've been unable to entirely avoid.
>>
>> Lucian
>>
>
> I haven't merged the MissingLibraryConsumerSet yet since I'd like to
> see if we can improve it a bit first. I don't have any ideas right
> now but hopefully we can come up with something soon.
>
> Zac
>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkicxEsACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNcyACfX7oKKCbYraRk8AwckkA9Reu6
> cRkAoMa/vK5SXDTdw8+nYqpBAlUXz096
> =zskl
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>