Re: [gentoo-dev] new eclass: tmpfiles.eclass round 3

[Michał Górny]

On Wed, 16 Nov 2016 16:37:15 -0600
William Hubbs <williamh@g.o> wrote:

> # @FUNCTION: tmpfiles_process
> # @USAGE: tmpfiles_process <filename> <filename> ...
> # @DESCRIPTION:
> # Call a tmpfiles.d implementation to create new volatile and temporary
> # files and directories.
> # Specific files and directories can be listed, but if they are not, all
> # tmpfiles.d files will be processed.

This contradicts the code. And I'd prefer the code, since allowing
empty list will only encourage developers to be lazy, and I'm not
really convinced that unconditionally running every tmpfiles.d file
(esp. that user may be overriding some of them) at runtime is a good
idea.

> tmpfiles_process() {
> 	debug-print-function "${FUNCNAME}" "$@"
>
> 	[[ ${EBUILD_PHASE} == postinst ]] || die "${FUNCNAME}: Only valid in pkg_postinst"
> 	[[ ${#} -gt 0 ]] || die "${FUNCNAME}: Must specify at least one filename"
> 	[[ ${ROOT} == / ]] || return 0
>
> 	if type systemd-tmpfiles &> /dev/null; then
> 		systemd-tmpfiles --create "$@"
> 	elif type opentmptmpfiles &> /dev/null; then

You have double 'tmp' here.

> 		opentmpfiles --create "$@"
> 	fi
> }

Also, I'm wondering if we should have any specific error handling here.
Maybe we should ewarn if something fails? Mike?

Also, possibly 'else' branch with big fat warning if for some reason
dependencies are missing?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>