On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:16:14AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian,
I just want to make sure this is still on your agenda :)
InSVN, and in the tree... :)
~harring
pgpcmhNYyu2R8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Brian Harring wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:16:14AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian,
I just want to make sure this is still on your agenda :)
InSVN, and in the tree... :)
Great! Thanks :)
I was just wondering: Will I be mentioned anywhere?
- Johannes.
--
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:16:14AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian,
I just want to make sure this is still on your agenda :)
InSVN, and in the tree... :)
Great! Thanks :)
Brian Harring wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 01:30:58PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 08:16:14AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian,
I just want to make sure this is still on your agenda :)
InSVN, and in
Brian,
I just want to make sure this is still on your agenda :)
- Johannes.
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:39:06PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian,
did you have a chance to look at this yet?
Will be integrating the changes sometime this week (spaced it
Brian,
did you have a chance to look at this yet?
- Johannes.
Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:15:00AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
if [[ -n $PORTAGE_NICENESS ]] ! [[ -z $WE_ARE_NICED ]]; then
Haven't looked at the patch yet, but a
Great! Thank you :) I'll be watching the GWN closely :)
- Johannes.
Brian Harring wrote:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:39:06PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian,
did you have a chance to look at this yet?
Will be integrating the changes sometime this week (spaced it tbh) :)
Brian Harring wrote:
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:15:00AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
if [[ -n $PORTAGE_NICENESS ]] ! [[ -z $WE_ARE_NICED ]]; then
Haven't looked at the patch yet, but a bit of bash fu for ya-
[[ -n $VAR ]] == ! [[ -z $VAR ]]
-z is zero length or unset, -n is
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 10:15:00AM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
if [[ -n $PORTAGE_NICENESS ]] ! [[ -z $WE_ARE_NICED ]]; then
Haven't looked at the patch yet, but a bit of bash fu for ya-
[[ -n $VAR ]] == ! [[ -z $VAR ]]
-z is zero length or unset, -n is length = 1 (thus must be set).
Ok, here's the patch for emerge-delta-webrync to use PORTAGE_NICENESS.
Brian, I hope this is what you had in mind.
I didn't alter the emerge-webrsync patch again, I think it's OK the way
I altered it in the last patch I posted,
but I attached it again anyway.
- Johannes.
---
Brian Harring wrote:
snip
I'd also raid the tarsync call- this is something I was intending on
doing but have't yet.
/snip
I don't have a very deep knowledge of all the portage internals.
Are you suggesting that I should rather leave this up to you since you
were planning
on changing
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 03:51:03PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Brian Harring wrote:
snip
I'd also raid the tarsync call- this is something I was intending on
doing but have't yet.
/snip
I don't have a very deep knowledge of all the portage internals.
Are you suggesting that
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 13:04 +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
I put a nice -n 19 in front of the tar, rsync and emerge metadata
commands because normally calling emerge-webrsync renders my box
unusable for 15 to 20 minutes. You still notice a difference when using
nice but everything seems
Paul Varner wrote:
Instead of hardcoding the nice value, use PORTAGE_NICENESS. Here is how
it is done in revdep-rebuild
# Obey PORTAGE_NICENESS
PORTAGE_NICENESS=$(portageq envvar PORTAGE_NICENESS)
[ ! -z $PORTAGE_NICENESS ] renice $PORTAGE_NICENESS $$ /dev/null
Good point. Is this
On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 05:38:02PM +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Paul Varner wrote:
Instead of hardcoding the nice value, use PORTAGE_NICENESS. Here is how
it is done in revdep-rebuild
# Obey PORTAGE_NICENESS
PORTAGE_NICENESS=$(portageq envvar PORTAGE_NICENESS)
[ ! -z
On Wed, 2005-12-28 at 17:38 +0100, Johannes Fahrenkrug wrote:
Good point. Is this patch better? Or should it rather be _exactly_ as it
is in revdep-rebuild?
I personally would do it the same way as revdep-rebuild since that
causes the entire script and anything it calls to be run at the value
16 matches
Mail list logo
