Feedback wanted: portage config validator

Genone · Last edited by Genone on Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:06 am; edited 1 time in total

Ok, as we had several bug reports caused by broken config files or wrong permissions I though I'd write a little script to check for those errors, so we don't have to look for non-existant bugs in portage. It's available at http://dev.gentoo.org/~genone/scripts/portage_syntax_checker.py This is a very early version and only checks some files (it doesn't touch the cache or the package database for example) but I want to see if there are any problems with the existing checks, so I encourage everyone to test it and report feedback here (not on bugs.gentoo.org) if it reports a problem and you think it's wrong.

Edit: Sticky --ian!
pjp: Unstuck. Script hasn't been modified since 2004.

Halcy0n · Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 2:44 am Post subject:

Looks nice. Its not nice to run it and see it report errors with files I didn't create, like /usr/portage/profiles/package.mask though

Pythonhead · Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 3:16 am Post subject:

The url to your script is wrong (has a '.' at the end)

Genone · Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:08 am Post subject:

I've already fixed the errors in package.mask.
URL corrected (blame phpBB).
Permission problem = not readable by the portage group.

pjp · Administrator Joined: 16 Apr 2002 Posts: 20092

I removed any faulty entries that I made in /etc/portage. Here are the results:

asph · Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 9:06 pm Post subject:

i had no errors.. all set

_________________
gentoo sex is updatedb; locate; talk; date; cd; strip; look; touch; finger; unzip; uptime; gawk; head; emerge --oneshot condom; mount; fsck; gasp; more; yes; yes; yes; more; umount; emerge -C condom; make clean; sleep

oberyno · Guru Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 467 Location: /bin/zsh

I got a couple erroneous errors in package.use.

Genone · Posted: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:44 pm Post subject:

Ok, updated the regular expression for USE flags.
Thanks to everyone who's testing it.

singular · n00b Joined: 07 Jun 2003 Posts: 54

The only error I get is

Cintra · Advocate Joined: 03 Apr 2004 Posts: 2111 Location: Norway

I get..

p4pe / # portage_syntax_checker.py
Checking file permissions ... done

checking file /etc/portage/package.mask
checking file /etc/portage/package.keywords
checking file /var/lib/portage/world
ERROR: syntax check failed on line 84:
<=media-sound/alsa-driver-1.0.3
checking file /mnt/hdb9/portage/profiles/package.mask
checking file /mnt/hdb9/portage/profiles/arch.list
checking file /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2004.0/virtuals
WARNING: non-virtual used as virtual, might cause problems:
sys-apps/console-tools sys-apps/kbd
checking file /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2004.0/use.mask
checking file /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2004.0/packages
checking file /usr/portage/profiles/default-x86-2004.0/use.defaults

Errors in user configuration:
world - 1

Errors in tree configuration:
None

Errors in profile configuration:
None
_________________
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" W.S.

oberyno · Guru Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 467 Location: /bin/zsh

Cerement · Guru Joined: 14 Jun 2003 Posts: 404

I'm assuming it would be a parsing headache, but listening to rac in #gentoo, anything that checked for typos in CFLAGS in /etc/make.conf sounds like it would be a big win with the support staff

kallamej · Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 7:56 am Post subject:

Nothing new to report really. Any particular technical reason that * isn't valid together with > and >= in the depend atoms? Ebuild(5) claims that it is indeed valid. And the console-tools non-virtual virtual is from the time when there was a console-tools package (6 months ago).

Genone · Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 8:36 am Post subject:

>=foo-1* doesn't create any problems yet, but it's kind of a contradiction:
- >= means use this version or any version greater than it
- * means use any version that starts with this prefix (simplified, it's a bit more restricted)

so if you have >=foo-1*, would it match foo-2.1 ? If you say yes then you don't need the *, if you say no you want =, not >=. That's why we decided it is invalid.

kallamej · Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:54 am Post subject:

Genone · Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:03 am Post subject:

kallamej · Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:15 am Post subject:

The keyword is strictly. I have foo-1.2.3-r4 and want to keep that version but allow its revisions. To avoid upgrading to higher versions a package.mask of >foo-1.2.3* seemed logical. Instead I have to use >=foo-1.2.4. Your examples are perfectly OK.
_________________
Please read our FAQ Forum, it answers many of your questions.
irc: #gentoo-forums on irc.libera.chat