Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions about CVS locations and GID...

[m h <sesquile@gmail.com>]

On 10/5/05, Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Yay, time for another flame war (just what I'd love to spend my time
> on).

Sorry, I'm really not trying to kindle any flames here.

> > >I looked through the dev documentation but couldn't find anywhere
> > >where it stated the actual location of the code in CVS.  Any pointers
> > >would be great.
> We've moved to svn, which will be available via viewcvs shortly.
> Anonymous svn is available if you poke your head into irc.freenode.net
> #gentoo-portage, and pull it from the /topic.
>

thanks for the pointer

> > >The issue I found is with pym/cache/fs_template.py.  If I'm running as
> > >root (GID = 0) then this fails:
> > >
> > >        def __init__(self, label, auxdbkeys, basepath=None, gid=-1,
> > >perms=0664, **config):
> > >               """throws InitializationError if needs args aren't
> > >               specified"""
> > >               if not gid:
> > >                       raise
> > >cache_errors.InitializationError(self.__class__, "must specify gid!")
> Judging by location, that's 2.1.
>
> The extra opts are directly changable via configuration under the
> rewrite's code, so setting gid isn't hard.
>
> > >Shouldn't the logic be "if gid != -1"?  I don't have access to a
> > >gentoo proper box right now...
> Yah.
> That said that code's been corrected under the rewrite.

So, on the topic of rewrite.  Does there happen to be any testcases
for portage?  Unittests, etc?  I'd be nice to verify that rewrite
behaves properly (well, actually I want testcases for selfish reasons,
so I don't break code if I change anything....)

>
> > I thought that part of brian's domain stuff in Savior was to cover this.
> >  In either case no one should be writing any real code at this point
> > since no one has agreed on any sane way to pull this off.  There needs
> > to be plenty of healthy discussion the pro's and con's of how things
> > should be done in regards to *-prefix.
>
> There was plenty of discussion about it last time around.  It got sunk
> due to the fact that ciaran was a bit hell bent on having HOME
> integrated into it.  All or none, was effectively the issue.
>

Yes, I waded through a bit of that discussion...  I really don't care
about the HOME issue (I'm not saying that others can't ;)).  My take
is that an app can do what it wants, and if it puts something in HOME
so be it.  In my case, there usually won't be two versions of an app
(so it shouldn't be an issue), though I realize others have differenct
use cases, and expectations.

> The current line of thought on it is global prefix going in as an addition
> to an EAPI release, _strictly_ global prefix.  The home crap (interdomain
> deps, querying information/location of package X) being a later release.
>

Sorry, I don't know what EAPI means....

> Why?  Doing prefix is hard.  Doing prefix + home is harder.  A global
> offset for PREFIX is going to require a fair amount of work.  Tacking
> home into it (something that a global offset does _not_ require) is
> sadling a requested feature with a lesser feature.

Sounds good to me....

>
> Do 'em seperate.  Those who want interdomain, they can do the work.
> Those who want global offset, they can do that chunk.
>

I understand the interdomain stuff to be that prefixed packages can
depend on packages outside of their prefix?  If so, I don't want this
"feature".  I want an isolated sandbox.  (Again, I realize others have
different needs)


> To head off the "it's not going to work for vim-*", yah, you'll be
> boned and have to install duplicate vim-* into the global prefix.
> Bluntly, either you dive in and start wading through the problems
> (fixing them as you go), or you sit back listening to how it's never
> going to work (thus accomplishing nothing).
> ~harring
>

So, I figure I'm sortof diving in with Haubi's code (against the
advice of those wanted a complete spec) since I think my needs seem to
be the most minimum subset of what others want in this feature.  I
think it's a good way to help me understand the innards of portage
(though the code is pretty spaghetti right now).  I presume you think
I should start with "rewrite" as a base?  What is the current status
of rewrite?

Sorry for all the questions, again I'm not looking to start a flame
war, I'm looking for some features and like what gentoo has done and
what can be done with it.  I'm not trying to work against or outside
what the mainline developers are doing....

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list