No ebuild exists for the new version of cloop - 2.00.
I tried using one of the existing ebuilds - 1.02, however that build failed the download portion as the source no longer existed on the site.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. emerge cloop
emerge a newer cloop, perhaps 2.00
Created attachment 22778 [details]
cloop 2.00 ebuild
Simply copied from other cloop ebuild 1.02.
No changes made. Builds successfully and mounts KNOPPIX 3.3 in tests.
From the changelog, I'd say that cloop-2.00 replaces the cloop-1.x series.
I've added your ebuild for cloop-2.00; it should appear on a local rysnc mirror in about an hour's time. Can you test this, and confirm it works for you? Thanks.
For the record ;-) I've also made a source tarball to go with the cloop-0.68 ebuild (which is the cloop version we used in 2003 on our Gentoo CDs), and put that up onto our distfiles mirrors.
I've successfully built the package using the ebuild in the portage tree again kernel 2.4.22-gentoo-r2 (gentoo sources). I was also able to succesfully mount the KNOPPIX image.
One thing I also noticed in the changelog is that since this new version uses 64bit pointers, it is incompatible with legacy images using 32bit pointers. That indicates to me that mounting images such as the gentoo CD with this version will fail. Bit of a mutual exclusion problem aparrently. I'm dissappointed that this incompatibility doesn't seem to be made clear in any obvious way. (Or perhaps im just blind and missed the glaring big warning sign ;)
Any ideas on how this could be handled? I'm sure some users would like the ability to mount either versions image.
Happy (almost) New Year!
It's a good point. I guess the ebuilds could be changed to install the modules as cloop-32bit and cloop-64bit instead, and to allow both versions to be installed at the same time. You'd still only be able to insmod one of the modules at a time though.
How would that sound?
That would work quite nicely. Should probably include a readme with the package that explains the differences. Some might wrongly assume that 32 vs 64 was architecture dependent or something ;)
Perhaps they should still be seperate ebuilds nevertheless though. For one thing, youd end up with a package name like cloop-0.68-2.00, kinda confusing.
Its probably a bit easier to keep them separate, but not mutually exclusive to emerge.
But, six to one, half dozen to another! ;)
In either case, this particular bug is fixed as far as im concerned. Should we then mark this one closed and reopen a different bug pending someone's decision regarding packaging?
I'll send a post to gentoo-dev mailing list about the proposed modname changes first, and see where that goes. I agree, it's separate to this bug, so I'll close this one now.
The two versions of cloop would remain in separate ebuilds. Portage allows you to install more than one version of a package at the same time, provided they use SLOTS.