Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 166734 - assume-digest does not work as documented
Summary: assume-digest does not work as documented
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 191645
Alias: None
Product: Portage Development
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Core (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: High normal (vote)
Assignee: Portage team
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2007-02-13 21:06 UTC by Alex
Modified: 2013-02-15 21:24 UTC (History)
0 users

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


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Alex 2007-02-13 21:06:42 UTC
In make.conf.example, it states that it controls the assumption of digests if the file doesn't exist. However, when doing FEATURES="-assume-digests", ebuild does not seem to read this and discard the digests.

Reproducible: Always
Comment 1 Marius Mauch (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2007-02-13 21:26:46 UTC
This report doesn't make sense to me.
Comment 2 Alex 2007-02-13 21:30:49 UTC
What do you not understand? According to make.conf.example, the assume-digests feature controls whether digest.assumed happens in ebuild. Well, it doesn't seem to be working according to it's description in make.conf.example.. Thus when you FEATURES="-assume-digests", ebuild <ebuild> digest doesn't remove the existing digests, and redigest completely..
Comment 3 Zac Medico gentoo-dev 2007-02-13 21:38:05 UTC
(In reply to comment #2)
> when you FEATURES="-assume-digests", ebuild <ebuild> digest doesn't remove the
> existing digests, and redigest completely..

Right, you need to use the `ebuild --force foo.ebuild digest` for that, which needs to be documented.  We should also document the fact that digests are automatically assumed for files that do not currently exist in ${DISTDIR}.
Comment 4 Alex 2007-02-13 21:40:11 UTC
You don't need to just document that, but you need to fix the documentation in make.conf.example then. But why not fix it to act as the name suggests?
Comment 5 Zac Medico gentoo-dev 2007-02-13 22:03:38 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> But why not fix it to act as the name suggests?

Changing the behavior of existing features that large numbers of people depend on often leads to confusion.  I doubt that the change you're suggesting can be done without lots of people noticing and getting upset.
Comment 6 Alex 2007-02-13 22:06:56 UTC
Oh well, I just figured the name would match the function.
Comment 7 Zac Medico gentoo-dev 2013-02-15 21:24:40 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 191645 ***