Bug 89338 – new script to test possibility of simultaneous emerge

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED INVALID

[Description DEMAINE Benoît-Pierre, aka DoubleHP 2005-04-16 11:06:08 UTC]

# This script is written for those stupid people like me
# who like launching several emerge at the same time
# It tries to determine whether launching a new emerge at once is risky or not.

# It can take one or two arguments.
# Each argument can be composite; composite arguments are delimited with "

# if you give two arguments, it says whether the two emerge can be done in parallel:
# $ emerge-diff xmms wireless-tools
# usually returns OK, because their dependencies do not overlap.
# $ emerge-diff xmms xmms
# will always fails since dependencies of xmmms overlap with himself.
# $ emerge-diff "xmms wireless-tools" "enlightenment mplayer"
# will tell if it is possible to do side by side:
# $ emerge xmms wireless-tools
# $ emerge enlightenment mplayer

# If the script reports any risk, it will print the list of
# common dependencies between the first and the second argument.
# If you first emerge the list returned, then you can emerge side
# by side the first and second argument without breaking any thing.

# if you provide only one argument, the script will list
# the running emerges, and build the dependency list of all packages being emerged.
# this allows to determine whether you can start a 2nd (or 3rd) emerge
# without stopping the ones already running to add arguments.
#
# If you supply only one agument, the script WILL NOT analyse whether
# already running emerges may break portage !!!

# emerge-diff
# without any argument will list packages being emerged.


Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.




please merge this script in portage of gentoolkit :D

[Comment 1 Alec Warner (RETIRED) 2005-08-17 20:22:15 UTC]

I can't see this going into stable just because parallel merging isn't 
officially supported.  There is code to make it work better than before, but 
it's certainly not perfect.  Thus I don't see the point of adding tools to check 
to make sure unsupported funcationality is 'safe'.

[Comment 2 DEMAINE Benoît-Pierre, aka DoubleHP 2005-08-17 21:41:27 UTC]

> Thus I don't see the point of adding tools to check 
> to make sure unsupported funcationality is 'safe'.

because some ppl could find it funny and would use it in ~x86 ?

even if 100 people around the world use it as unstable, I d still be glad to
provide a script nobody could write before me, and let users feel a bit more
free than before I enter the comunity.

[Comment 3 DEMAINE Benoît-Pierre, aka DoubleHP 2006-07-07 02:54:59 UTC]

I think this script was written when I was a bit too young, and is not usefull for the comunity, and may be too buggy to be debugged.

Closing request.