159080 – [PATCH] etc-update automerge-trivial-changes-only flag

Bug 159080 - [PATCH] etc-update automerge-trivial-changes-only flag

Summary: [PATCH] etc-update automerge-trivial-changes-only flag

Status:	RESOLVED FIXED

Alias:	None

Product:	Portage Development
Classification:	Unclassified
Component:	Enhancement/Feature Requests (show other bugs)
Hardware:	All Linux

Importance:	High enhancement (vote)
Assignee:	Portage team

URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Duplicates (2):	266925 296761 (view as bug list)
Depends on:	265040
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree

Reported:	2006-12-25 07:30 UTC by Iván Pérez Domínguez
Modified:	2012-03-11 02:56 UTC (History)
CC List:	2 users (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required:	---

Attachments
etc-update path to include the new flag (etc-update.patch,674 bytes, patch) 2006-12-25 07:33 UTC, Iván Pérez Domínguez	Details \| Diff
Patch to etc-update in diff unified form (etc-update.patch,957 bytes, patch) 2006-12-25 09:34 UTC, Iván Pérez Domínguez	Details \| Diff
Patch in unified form (etc-update.patch,957 bytes, patch) 2006-12-31 04:09 UTC, Iván Pérez Domínguez	Details \| Diff
Show Obsolete (2) View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.

Description Iván Pérez Domínguez 2006-12-25 07:30:42 UTC

I'm just missing an "automerge-trivial-changes-and-exit" switch in etc-update.

I suggest this flag to be added to etc-update.

I know it's not a great deal, simply felt like it should be there and was easy enough to implement.

Comment 1 Iván Pérez Domínguez 2006-12-25 07:33:44 UTC

Created attachment 104711 [details, diff]
etc-update path to include the new flag

One possible implementation (patch for etc-update is attached).

Quite simple, all the code has been added out of the functions.

The first part deals with switches, the second part after
`scan' is called stops if requested.

Comment 2 Iván Pérez Domínguez 2006-12-25 07:36:34 UTC

I didn't say I'm using sys-apps/portage-2.1.2_rc4-r1. Just in case someone tries to patch etc-update and sth goes wrong.

The patch doesn't include context information, maybe it should.

Comment 3 Marius Mauch (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2006-12-25 08:57:38 UTC

Always submit patches in unified diff form (`diff -u` output).

Comment 4 Iván Pérez Domínguez 2006-12-25 09:34:06 UTC

Created attachment 104713 [details, diff]
Patch to etc-update in diff unified form

Same as previous patch (in comment #1), just in unified form.

Comment 5 solar (RETIRED) gentoo-dev

2006-12-25 12:00:35 UTC

I think your patch is -Reversed.

Comment 6 Iván Pérez Domínguez 2006-12-31 04:09:35 UTC

Created attachment 105033 [details, diff]
Patch in unified form

You're right, I did 'diff -u newfile oldfile'. Here's the non-reversed
version.

Comment 7 SpanKY gentoo-dev

2012-03-11 02:46:29 UTC

*** Bug 266925 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 8 SpanKY gentoo-dev

2012-03-11 02:47:13 UTC

*** Bug 296761 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 9 SpanKY gentoo-dev

2012-03-11 02:56:23 UTC

thanks all ... i've implemented this using the flag name Diego suggested (preen)

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commitdiff;h=2b3f235988b45c3c11d57fedad12587b1536fdac