| 1 |
On Sunday 07 February 2010 17:19:43 Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/07/2010 01:10 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Wouldn't it be a good idea to use "set -e" in the ebuild environment ? |
| 4 |
> > I've seen cases of ebuilds calling epatch without inheriting from eutils |
| 5 |
> > which compiled and installed (apparently) fine but possibly broken |
| 6 |
> > binaries. Examples of cases where "set -e" would have helped: 303849, |
| 7 |
> > 297063, 260279, 221257, |
| 8 |
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=command+not+found |
| 9 |
> > and perhaps others I haven't managed to find in bugzilla |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I don't know what kind of side-effects set -e would introduce, but |
| 12 |
> we can easily add a repoman check for epatch calls without eutils |
| 13 |
> inherit. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
if we wanted to specifically target semi-common errors (and i think 'epatch' |
| 16 |
w/out eutils.eclass falls into this category), then a repoman check would be |
| 17 |
good. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
it might also be useful to add a default epatch() to the initial env that |
| 20 |
would be clobbered when the inherit occurred. |
| 21 |
epatch() { die "you need to inherit eutils.eclass to use epatch" ; } |
| 22 |
-mike |
Archives