[gentoo-user] portpeek and relative vs absolute path

[gentoo-user] portpeek and relative vs absolute path

[Gene Hannan]

I'm seeing a quirk in portpeek on one of two machines with similar
installations.  Portpeek responds with, for example,

package.keywords:
Could not find file etc/portage/package.keywords

Note the absence of an initial slash.  The program executes correctly
from "/" as a working directory.

The system is up to date, x86 with ~x86 as required for KDE-4.2 and a
handful of others.  Python 2.5.4 is the only version installed, and the
behavior is the same with eselect-python-20090801 or -20090804.

I've tried simply re-emerging portage, portpeek, eselect, and
python-eselect with no effect, and seen the same behavior with
gentoo-sources-2.6.28-r5 and 2.6/30-r4.

My other machine with the same versions of the packages that are likely
to be related executes portpeek from any working directory, as did the
machine in question until a few weeks ago.  Any tips on where to look next?

[gentoo-user] Re: portpeek and relative vs absolute path

[ABCD]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Gene Hannan wrote:

> I'm seeing a quirk in portpeek on one of two machines with similar
> installations.  Portpeek responds with, for example,
> 
> package.keywords:
> Could not find file etc/portage/package.keywords
> 
> Note the absence of an initial slash.  The program executes correctly
> from "/" as a working directory.
> 
> The system is up to date, x86 with ~x86 as required for KDE-4.2 and a
> handful of others.  Python 2.5.4 is the only version installed, and the
> behavior is the same with eselect-python-20090801 or -20090804.
> 
> I've tried simply re-emerging portage, portpeek, eselect, and
> python-eselect with no effect, and seen the same behavior with
> gentoo-sources-2.6.28-r5 and 2.6/30-r4.
> 
> My other machine with the same versions of the packages that are likely
> to be related executes portpeek from any working directory, as did the
> machine in question until a few weeks ago.  Any tips on where to look
> next?

That looks like it may be a bug in portpeek that only is appearing now 
because portage changed some of its internals to simplify things in portage, 
but packages using portage's internal APIs incorrectly stopped working.

- -- 
ABCD
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkqArRkACgkQOypDUo0oQOpDeACdFYr7P+9iTuJZBdRRuGMponhP
ckgAoLbaR0AsoqlVkOLq1NaObpJp1eHC
=Px69
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----