Re: XATTR_PAX migration

On 10/04/2013 12:23 AM, Alex Efros wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2013 at 05:26:57PM -0400, Anthony G. Basile wrote:
>> You can use XT_PAX provided you're not running something like a
>> tinderbox, ie doing massive amounts of ebuilds.  The problem is that
>> install is being wrapped by install.py.  As a result every instance of
>> install mean invoking the python interpreter.  With lots and lots of
>> installs, this adds up to being very slow.
>
> I think it may be possible to add very ease and effective optimization -
> call install.py only for executable files and use /usr/bin/install for all
> other files. This can be implemented in single line in
> /usr/lib/portage/bin/ebuild-helpers/xattr/install. Also it may make sense
> to rewrite /usr/lib/portage/bin/ebuild-helpers/xattr/install in C.
>

I was hoping a greater generalization than just user.pax.flags so that 
we can have full end-to-end support for xattrs of any name space we choose.

The problem that I have not had time to face is, how do I include a 
compiled version of install at 
/usr/lib/portage/bin/ebuild-helpers/xattr/install?  I know how to patch 
the C, and its is not hard to maintain a separate version of install 
from coreutils, but how do I include this in portage so that when you 
emerge portage you get this compiled version?

I'm cc-ing zmedico.  The guru here.

-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D.
Chair of Information Technology
D'Youville College
Buffalo, NY 14201
(716) 829-8197