Loop through excludes #21
Conversation
added /var/db/repos/gentoo and /var/cache/distfiles to hard-coded list of excludes. Portage has moved (when?) according to https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki//usr/portage
Added portageq logic to detect where portage stores its tree and distfiles. If this fails, fall back to a default list declared in EXCLUDES_DEFAULT_PORTAGE
Portage has moved
add new portage paths with optional portageq logic (#18)
added a loop to create the '--exclude foo' options from an array list. This way it's less copy-paste to add a new static exclude; it _would_ also be possible to check if the 'object-to-exclude' actually exists and only generate the exclude parameter in this case.
|
@drwulsen sorry for the late reply. Looks good to me. Have you had the opportunity to test it? Also, could you rebase this into one commit? |
|
I've figured that I'm too stupid for github and all the branches, PRs, commits and stuff. I've fixed this and edited a lot of the script in my fork of it, but how to get five things back into one file where one change depends on the other....well, I think I'll be outta here and you are welcome to use whatever you find useful from my fork - but maintaining any form of consistency seems quite un-possible to me with my github knowledge..... |
|
@drwulsen I know how you feel, git rebase has the bad habit of being quite frustrating and blowing up in the faces of people who are not gurus :D A nice thing about github is that you can just take a PR (e.g. this one), write |
| exclude() | ||
| { | ||
| ADDEXCLUDE=$(echo "$1" | sed 's/^\///') | ||
| EXCLUDES+=" --exclude=${TARGET}${ADDEXCLUDE}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This will break excludes that don't intend to match the entire path below TARGET e.g. lost+found or -e '*.iso
Here it is, as promised - the loop-generated excludes list in a separate PR.
Let me know what you think of it.