Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ralph Sennhauser <sera@g.o>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarifications on dosym behaviour
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:59:37
Message-Id: 20120127225919.44d0f2de@sera-17.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Clarifications on dosym behaviour by Ulrich Mueller
On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:23:10 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:

> >>>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: > > > Just recently Portage started to emit "* QA Notice: dosym target > > omits basename ..." for "dosym /path_to_file/file /some_other_path/" > > > The PMS says: > > > dosym: Creates a symbolic link named as for its second parameter, > > pointing to the first. If the directory containing the new link does > > not exist, creates it. Failure behaviour is EAPI dependent as per > > section 12.3.3.1. > > > The part "Creates a symbolic link named as for its second parameter" > > could qualify it for requiring a basename. > > Exactly. > > > As the behaviour of an implicit basename of the second parameter was > > used for a long time I wonder if the PMS needs to be updated and > > clarify the dosym behaviour or if this new QA warning can be seen as > > a long overdue implementation of the intended behaviour. > > This has been discussed in bug 379899 and the conclusion was that PMS > specifies the intended behaviour. > > At the moment a directory argument produces only a QA warning in > Portage. I think the long-term plan is to turn it into an error > though. >
Thanks for the clarifications. Cheers