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
1 On Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:23:10 +0100
2 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > >>>>> On Fri, 27 Jan 2012, Ralph Sennhauser wrote:
5 >
6 > > Just recently Portage started to emit "* QA Notice: dosym target
7 > > omits basename ..." for "dosym /path_to_file/file /some_other_path/"
8 >
9 > > The PMS says:
10 >
11 > > dosym: Creates a symbolic link named as for its second parameter,
12 > > pointing to the first. If the directory containing the new link does
13 > > not exist, creates it. Failure behaviour is EAPI dependent as per
14 > > section 12.3.3.1.
15 >
16 > > The part "Creates a symbolic link named as for its second parameter"
17 > > could qualify it for requiring a basename.
18 >
19 > Exactly.
20 >
21 > > As the behaviour of an implicit basename of the second parameter was
22 > > used for a long time I wonder if the PMS needs to be updated and
23 > > clarify the dosym behaviour or if this new QA warning can be seen as
24 > > a long overdue implementation of the intended behaviour.
25 >
26 > This has been discussed in bug 379899 and the conclusion was that PMS
27 > specifies the intended behaviour.
28 >
29 > At the moment a directory argument produces only a QA warning in
30 > Portage. I think the long-term plan is to turn it into an error
31 > though.
32 >
33
34 Thanks for the clarifications.
35
36 Cheers