| 1 |
El 07/02/2010, a las 18:19, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> escribió: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 02/07/2010 01:10 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Wouldn't it be a good idea to use "set -e" in the ebuild |
| 5 |
>> environment ? |
| 6 |
>> I've seen cases of ebuilds calling epatch without inheriting from |
| 7 |
>> eutils |
| 8 |
>> which compiled and installed (apparently) fine but possibly broken |
| 9 |
>> binaries. Examples of cases where "set -e" would have helped: 303849, |
| 10 |
>> 297063, 260279, 221257, |
| 11 |
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=command+not+found |
| 12 |
>> and perhaps others I haven't managed to find in bugzilla |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I don't know what kind of side-effects set -e would introduce, but |
| 15 |
> we can easily add a repoman check for epatch calls without eutils |
| 16 |
> inherit. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Portage already does a search of the build log for 'command not |
| 19 |
> found' messages and generates a QA warnings. Set |
| 20 |
> PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES="${PORTAGE_ELOG_CLASSES} qa" in /etc/make.conf |
| 21 |
> if you want to have those warnings logged. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
But, shouldn't it die when a command isn't found? Not only with epatch. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> -- |
| 26 |
> Thanks, |
| 27 |
> Zac |
| 28 |
> |
Archives