| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Avuton Olrich wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> For some of us in the peanut gallery it'd also be nice to document the |
| 7 |
> pitfalls of grepping inherited to determine if it's a live ebuild |
| 8 |
> (update-live-ebuilds has done it for years, fairly successfully..). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I'm told that some ebuilds that are not really "live" ebuilds still |
| 11 |
inherit the same eclasses that are used for "live" ebuilds. So, |
| 12 |
there is no direct correspondence between inheriting one of these |
| 13 |
eclasses and being a "live" ebuild. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> Granted it's not clean, and yes, as a secondary check you may need to |
| 16 |
> check for SVN_REPO_URI or else. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The SVN_REPO_URI variable wouldn't be very useful because it only |
| 19 |
applies to the svn eclass, and it's not among the special metadata |
| 20 |
variables that you'll find cached in /usr/portgage/metadata/cache. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> This is also acting like people are |
| 23 |
> going to follow this convention, which even in a perfect world means |
| 24 |
> people will tend to forget this or not even know they're supposed to |
| 25 |
> put it. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
It's not that hard to do, and if it's initially overlooked by an |
| 28 |
ebuild maintainer than its not really a difficult thing to spot and |
| 29 |
fix. Much more elusive bugs do exist. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Zac |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkiVBVsACgkQ/ejvha5XGaOUeACeJrXwikBgoEOVmBG6iaPqetTY |
| 36 |
4qAAoKZ/CqcUwLaM/GU/XfDV7dKTwV9s |
| 37 |
=wM+N |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives