[gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[Gian Calgeer]

Hi

I was really looking forward to the new autounmask feature in portage, 
as it replaces my ugly home-grown bash script. However, it just picks a 
seemingly random file in /etc/portage/package.keywords to put things 
into. Is there a way to specify which file it writes things into? 
Ideally, I would like to have file names based on the package I'm 
emerging, so if e.g. I do "emerge --autounmask-write=y 
dev-ruby/rest-client", it should put the keywords into 
/etc/portage/package.keywords/dev-ruby-rest-client or similar. 
Alternatively, it would be great if I could at least get portage to 
output the keywords to stdout without mixing it up with other output, so 
I could redirect it to a file I want. Is there any way to do this?

Gian

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[Dale]

Gian Calgeer wrote:
> Hi
>
> I was really looking forward to the new autounmask feature in portage, 
> as it replaces my ugly home-grown bash script. However, it just picks 
> a seemingly random file in /etc/portage/package.keywords to put things 
> into. Is there a way to specify which file it writes things into? 
> Ideally, I would like to have file names based on the package I'm 
> emerging, so if e.g. I do "emerge --autounmask-write=y 
> dev-ruby/rest-client", it should put the keywords into 
> /etc/portage/package.keywords/dev-ruby-rest-client or similar. 
> Alternatively, it would be great if I could at least get portage to 
> output the keywords to stdout without mixing it up with other output, 
> so I could redirect it to a file I want. Is there any way to do this?
>
> Gian
>
>

I was using autounmask to do this and it does just like you want.  
However, the last time I used autounmask, it was different.  You may 
want to try that tho to see if it helps in some way.

The feature with emerge picks the first file I think in the directory.  
It is annoying as heck for sure.  Since it is a work in progress, maybe 
they will change this weird behavior soon.

Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too.  Jeez.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 236 bytes --]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:58:57 -0500, Dale wrote:

> Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too.  Jeez.

That's why we have EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Top Oxymorons Number 46: Found missing

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 10:58:57 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too.  Jeez.
>>      
> That's why we have EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS :)
>
>
>    

Yea but I don't always want it to unmask packages either.  If I was 
going to let that be the default, I may as well run ~amd64.

I think it is a work in progress.  Just need to give it time to grow a 
little.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[Neil Bothwick]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:43:36 -0500, Dale wrote:

> >> Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too.
> >> Jeez. 
> > That's why we have EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS :)

> Yea but I don't always want it to unmask packages either.  If I was 
> going to let that be the default,

I thought we were talking about a switch to set the filename to use. That
could be set to a default without turning on autounmask-write.

> I may as well run ~amd64.

That does seem a simpler approach, but this is about unmasking, not just
keywording. autounmask is useful to those running ~arch too.



-- 
Neil Bothwick

ASSISTANT MANAGER: Feminine form of the word manager (q.v.).

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 15:43:36 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>>>> Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too.
>>>> Jeez.
>>>>          
>>> That's why we have EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS :)
>>>        
>    
>> Yea but I don't always want it to unmask packages either.  If I was
>> going to let that be the default,
>>      
> I thought we were talking about a switch to set the filename to use. That
> could be set to a default without turning on autounmask-write.
>
>    
>> I may as well run ~amd64.
>>      
> That does seem a simpler approach, but this is about unmasking, not just
> keywording. autounmask is useful to those running ~arch too.
>
>
>
>    

Wouldn't this be like putting package.* back to a file instead of a 
directory tho?  That would seem like one step forward and two steps 
back.  Maybe I am missing something again.  I sort of got some "issues" 
going on around here.  :/

I just sort of like the way autounmask did it.  It has its drawbacks to 
tho.  If you unmask something and there is a package in the file that 
you wouldn't think is related, good luck finding that later on when you 
have a lot of files in there.  Needle in the haystack comes to mind.  I 
guess that is when grep or something comes in to the rescue.

To many options sometimes.  o_O

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 648 bytes --]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:22:05 -0500, Dale wrote:

> Wouldn't this be like putting package.* back to a file instead of a 
> directory tho?  That would seem like one step forward and two steps 
> back.  Maybe I am missing something again.  I sort of got some "issues" 
> going on around here.  :/

No, the discussion is about the name of the file in package.unmask. if
that is a file there is no issue. The problem is that portage just picks
a file from that directory, it should either have its own file in there or
add the entries to a file named after the package.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

An unemployed Court Jester is nobody's fool.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[Dale]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Jul 2011 23:22:05 -0500, Dale wrote:
>
>    
>> Wouldn't this be like putting package.* back to a file instead of a
>> directory tho?  That would seem like one step forward and two steps
>> back.  Maybe I am missing something again.  I sort of got some "issues"
>> going on around here.  :/
>>      
> No, the discussion is about the name of the file in package.unmask. if
> that is a file there is no issue. The problem is that portage just picks
> a file from that directory, it should either have its own file in there or
> add the entries to a file named after the package.
>
>
>    

I agree but it doesn't do that.  Of course, as I described, having many 
files makes it difficult to find what file contains what too.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 820 bytes --]

On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 02:52:05 -0500, Dale wrote:

> > No, the discussion is about the name of the file in package.unmask. if
> > that is a file there is no issue. The problem is that portage just
> > picks a file from that directory, it should either have its own file
> > in there or add the entries to a file named after the package.

> I agree but it doesn't do that. 

Well, we wouldn't be complaining about it not doing something if it did
it :)

> Of course, as I described, having many 
> files makes it difficult to find what file contains what too.

Not if the files are sensibly organised. The current implementation
messes up that organisation.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

The horizon of many people is a circle with a radius of zero. They call
this their point of view.
		-- Albert Einstein

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] emerge --autounmask-write: specify file

[Gian Calgeer]

On 05.07.2011 17:58, Dale wrote:
> I was using autounmask to do this and it does just like you want.  
> However, the last time I used autounmask, it was different.  You may 
> want to try that tho to see if it helps in some way.
>
> The feature with emerge picks the first file I think in the 
> directory.  It is annoying as heck for sure.  Since it is a work in 
> progress, maybe they will change this weird behavior soon.
>
> Then again, that is yet another option to have to remember too.  Jeez.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
Thanks for the hint. Last time I tried it, it had problems (not removing 
files when the unmasking didn't succeed or something like that, I don't 
remember exactly). However, maybe things have changed for the better.