FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 09-10-2012, 01:34 AM
Zac Medico
 
Default News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
> To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
> symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line
> "source /etc/portage/make.conf"?

I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they?
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 09-10-2012, 01:34 AM
Duncan
 
Default News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

Duncan posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 00:59:32 +0000 as excerpted:

> To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf

<cringe!> I apologize for the terrible "sentence" structure (and
spelling "knowledge" or rather practice). Hopefully it's obvious what I
intended to ask, tho.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
 
Old 09-10-2012, 06:06 AM
Duncan
 
Default News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

Zac Medico posted on Sun, 09 Sep 2012 18:34:09 -0700 as excerpted:

> On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
>> To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
>> symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line "source
>> /etc/portage/make.conf"?
>
> I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they?

Back then, portage complained. It's been awhile ago and I didn't write
it down, but I seem to remember something about double inclusion.
However, it's quite possible that was my diagnosis, not portage's
complaint. I just returned to /etc/make.conf, because with both that
and /etc/portage/make.conf portage had problems, and with /etc/portage/
make.conf only, something else didn't work.

But as I said that was way back when I first read about it, probably in
the changelog on my first update after it hit a release, so I'd guess
it's looonngg fixed by now. Now that you've confirmed it works for you
now, I'll play around with things a bit and file bugs if I see 'em.

As always, thanks. =:^)

(Now back to that kernel 3.6-git bug I just finished bisecting and was
about to file upstream... workqueue merge, commit 63d95a91, crashing in
schedule/core.c on line 1654, FWIW.)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
 
Old 09-11-2012, 03:29 AM
"Gregory M. Turner"
 
Default News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

On 9/9/2012 6:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote:

On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:

To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line
"source /etc/portage/make.conf"?


I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they?


If both /etc/portage/make.conf and /etc/make.conf were evaluated, stuff like

FOO="${FOO} bar"

could cause, i.e., duplications... not sure what all the rules are
limiting what one can and can't put in make.conf, but one could imagine
all kinds of wacky stuff.


However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
/etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if
possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing"
for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm
mistaken, which is always plausible


-gmt
 
Old 09-11-2012, 05:39 AM
Duncan
 
Default News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

Gregory M. Turner posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:29:53 -0700 as excerpted:

> However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
> /etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if
> possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing"
> for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm
> mistaken, which is always plausible

Thanks. Reasonable approach and good to know.

(I actually just did a sync. I should go adjust the location before I
try to build anything, and start my own tests instead of debating what
/could/ happen. Excuse me... =:^)

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
 
Old 09-11-2012, 04:29 PM
Zac Medico
 
Default News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

On 09/10/2012 08:29 PM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> On 9/9/2012 6:34 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 09/09/2012 05:59 PM, Duncan wrote:
>>> To your knowlege (IOW have you tested) having /etc/make.conf either a
>>> symlink to /etc/portage/make.conf or a simple one-line
>>> "source /etc/portage/make.conf"?
>>
>> I've tested them both just now, and they work for me. Why wouldn't they?
>
> If both /etc/portage/make.conf and /etc/make.conf were evaluated, stuff
> like
>
> FOO="${FOO} bar"
>
> could cause, i.e., duplications... not sure what all the rules are
> limiting what one can and can't put in make.conf, but one could imagine
> all kinds of wacky stuff.

It could cause duplicates, but for variables where FOO="${FOO} bar"
makes sense, duplicates probably aren't harmful.

> However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
> /etc/portage/make.conf is present,

I don't know where you got that idea, but it's not true. Portage sources
both files, and settings from /etc/portage/make.conf will override
settings from /etc/make.conf.

> so symlinking, or even better, if
> possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing"
> for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm
> mistaken, which is always plausible

I would recommend to simply use /etc/make.conf alone until the legacy
tools that you use catch up. We have to change the default location in
the stages in order to expose the bugs so they can get fixed.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 
Old 09-12-2012, 12:02 AM
Duncan
 
Default News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

Zac Medico posted on Tue, 11 Sep 2012 09:29:36 -0700 as excerpted:

> I would recommend to simply use /etc/make.conf alone until the legacy
> tools that you use catch up. We have to change the default location in
> the stages in order to expose the bugs so they can get fixed.

I posted to the portage-dev list about this so you probably already know,
but for others, particularly users, following this transition thread:

Gentoo's bash-completion breaks when make.conf is in /etc/portage. Bug
filed back in early July and there's a simple enough patch, but
app-shells/gentoo-bashcomp has only the shell-tools herd, no dedicated
maintainer, and 13 open bugs including this one, all apparently portage
(or gentoolkit) related, with the last release in 2010 (Dec) with
stabilization a month later. So it's not seeing a lot of movement.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424777

So anyone who depends on tab-completion for their emerge commands, etc,
may want to either hold off on the move or apply the patch manually, until
this is fixed.

FWIW here's the listing of all open app-shells/gentoo-bashcomp bugs:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=app-shells%2Fgentoo-bashcomp

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
 
Old 09-12-2012, 03:55 AM
Ben de Groot
 
Default News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

On 12 September 2012 08:02, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> wrote:
> Gentoo's bash-completion breaks when make.conf is in /etc/portage. Bug
> filed back in early July and there's a simple enough patch, but
> app-shells/gentoo-bashcomp has only the shell-tools herd, no dedicated
> maintainer, and 13 open bugs including this one, all apparently portage
> (or gentoolkit) related, with the last release in 2010 (Dec) with
> stabilization a month later. So it's not seeing a lot of movement.
>
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=424777
>
> So anyone who depends on tab-completion for their emerge commands, etc,
> may want to either hold off on the move or apply the patch manually, until
> this is fixed.

Or use zsh instead. You can thank me later. ;-)

--
Cheers,

Ben | yngwin
Gentoo developer
Gentoo Qt project lead, Gentoo Wiki admin
 
Old 09-12-2012, 09:16 AM
"Gregory M. Turner"
 
Default News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

On 9/10/2012 10:39 PM, Duncan wrote:

Gregory M. Turner posted on Mon, 10 Sep 2012 20:29:53 -0700 as excerpted:


However, IIRC, /etc/make.conf is just ignored by portage if
/etc/portage/make.conf is present, so symlinking, or even better, if
possible, hardlinking those files would probably "do the right thing"
for legacy tools that don't know about the new location... unless I'm
mistaken, which is always plausible


Thanks. Reasonable approach and good to know.


Well, I did warn about the likelihood I was wrong Pretty clever
'cause that way even when I'm wrong (as turns out to have been the
case), I'm still right :P


In all seriousness, if both of them are sourced, then could one get away
with something like this?


/etc/make.conf:
source /etc/portage/make.conf

/etc/portage/make.conf:
if [[ __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE == gotit ]] ; then
__GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE=gotit
.
.
.
endif

or are conditionals disallowed? As Zac mentions, hopefully it's
harmless to duplicate things, but, personally, I would worry about the
effect of duplicates on performance, and also in PORTDIR_OVERLAY. Plus,
it just seems dirty.


-gmt
 
Old 09-12-2012, 10:04 AM
Zac Medico
 
Default News item 1: changes to stages (make.conf and make.profile)

On 09/12/2012 02:16 AM, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> In all seriousness, if both of them are sourced, then could one get away
> with something like this?
>
> /etc/make.conf:
> source /etc/portage/make.conf
>
> /etc/portage/make.conf:
> if [[ __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE == gotit ]] ; then
> __GENTOO_MAKE_CONF_ONCE=gotit
> .
> .
> .
> endif
>
> or are conditionals disallowed?

Yes, conditionals are not allowed. The parser only supports variable
assingments and source commands.

> As Zac mentions, hopefully it's
> harmless to duplicate things, but, personally, I would worry about the
> effect of duplicates on performance, and also in PORTDIR_OVERLAY. Plus,
> it just seems dirty.

I would recommend to use /etc/make.conf alone, until whatever tools you
use have been updated to support /etc/portage/make.conf. There's no need
for any of these compatibility workarounds that you and Duncan have been
suggesting.
--
Thanks,
Zac
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:57 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org