[gentoo-user] repos.conf migration lost overlay priority

[gentoo-user] repos.conf migration lost overlay priority

[Nikos Chantziaras]

I migrated my portage config to the new repos.conf system. I now have a 
file /etc/portage/repos.conf/local.conf:

   [Local]
   location = /usr/local/portage
   auto-sync = no

And removed the path from make.conf.

However, now layman overlays override my local repo. If I copy an ebuild 
to /usr/local/portage (for modifications) and try to emerge it, it is 
not emerged. Instead, the ebuild from the other overlay is emerged.

How do I make my local overlay have the highest priority so that it 
overrides *everything*?

[gentoo-user] Re: repos.conf migration lost overlay priority

[James]

Nikos Chantziaras <realnc <at> gmail.com> writes:


> I migrated my portage config to the new repos.conf system.

"repos.conf system" is very cool; thanks for posting about it;
but it's brand new to me, so I cannot really give you advise. I
did find this, in case you had not seen it yet:

http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Portage/Sync

I have a "mess" with different semantics for code evaluations,
enhancements and ebuild hacking. I need a new semantic. I'm not
going to hijack your thread, but I am going to follow this thread
very closely and then attempt to clean up the myriads of old
(hack) school methodologies that I have been using.

Does this system effect "epatch user", as in where the patches
are placed? allowing several different epatch_users codes to
be in existance and tested against one another?

Is the devmanual up to date on this new system?

Any and all resources related to repos.conf would be of interests
to post to this thread.



> I now have a 
> file /etc/portage/repos.conf/local.conf:

>    [Local]
>    location = /usr/local/portage
>    auto-sync = no

> And removed the path from make.conf.

> However, now layman overlays override my local repo. If I copy an ebuild 
> to /usr/local/portage (for modifications) and try to emerge it, it is 
> not emerged. Instead, the ebuild from the other overlay is emerged.

> How do I make my local overlay have the highest priority so that it 
> overrides *everything*?

What version of portage are you running? 2.2.17 or 2.2.9999?

What versions of python are set as your priority (default)?

James

Re: [gentoo-user] repos.conf migration lost overlay priority

[Andrew Savchenko]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 708 bytes --]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:29:07 +0200 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> I migrated my portage config to the new repos.conf system. I now have a 
> file /etc/portage/repos.conf/local.conf:
> 
>    [Local]
>    location = /usr/local/portage
>    auto-sync = no
 
> And removed the path from make.conf.
> 
> However, now layman overlays override my local repo. If I copy an ebuild 
> to /usr/local/portage (for modifications) and try to emerge it, it is 
> not emerged. Instead, the ebuild from the other overlay is emerged.
> 
> How do I make my local overlay have the highest priority so that it 
> overrides *everything*?

Try to add
priority = 100
to local.conf

Best regards,
Andrew Savchenko

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: repos.conf migration lost overlay priority

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 13/02/15 22:16, Andrew Savchenko wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2015 20:29:07 +0200 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
>> I migrated my portage config to the new repos.conf system. I now have a
>> file /etc/portage/repos.conf/local.conf:
>>
>>     [Local]
>>     location = /usr/local/portage
>>     auto-sync = no
>
>> And removed the path from make.conf.
>>
>> However, now layman overlays override my local repo. If I copy an ebuild
>> to /usr/local/portage (for modifications) and try to emerge it, it is
>> not emerged. Instead, the ebuild from the other overlay is emerged.
>>
>> How do I make my local overlay have the highest priority so that it
>> overrides *everything*?
>
> Try to add
> priority = 100
> to local.conf

Thanks! That works. To be sure, I used 99999999.

On a side note, someone should inform the portage devs that higher 
priorities should equal lower numbers. Don't do it the opposite way to 
the rest of the world, please :-P

[gentoo-user] Re: repos.conf migration lost overlay priority

[Nikos Chantziaras]

On 13/02/15 20:52, James wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras <realnc <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
>> I migrated my portage config to the new repos.conf system.
>
> "repos.conf system" is very cool; thanks for posting about it;
> but it's brand new to me [...]
>
> Does this system effect "epatch user", as in where the patches
> are placed? allowing several different epatch_users codes to
> be in existance and tested against one another?

I don't think so. All the patches seem to be expected to reside in the 
usual place (/etc/portage/patches/).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: repos.conf migration lost overlay priority

[Mike Gilbert]

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On a side note, someone should inform the portage devs that higher
> priorities should equal lower numbers. Don't do it the opposite way to the
> rest of the world, please :-P

That "someone" could be you. Send mail to
gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org or join us in #gentoo-portage on
IRC.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: repos.conf migration lost overlay priority

[lee]

Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> writes:

> On a side note, someone should inform the portage devs that higher
> priorities should equal lower numbers. Don't do it the opposite way to
> the rest of the world, please :-P

Why should "low" mean "high"?  The rest of the world usually considers
"high" as high and "low" as low.


-- 
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us.  Finally, this fear has become reasonable.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: repos.conf migration lost overlay priority

[Daniel Frey]

On 02/22/2015 03:26 AM, lee wrote:
> Nikos Chantziaras <realnc@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On a side note, someone should inform the portage devs that higher
>> priorities should equal lower numbers. Don't do it the opposite way to
>> the rest of the world, please :-P
> 
> Why should "low" mean "high"?  The rest of the world usually considers
> "high" as high and "low" as low.
> 
> 

That's not how the real world deals with priority lists. If I have
something urgent and I tell someone it's priority 10 they'll tell me to
I'll have to deal with it faster than that.

1=First thing to do
2=Second thing to do
etc...

Dan