Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH 1/4] distutils-r1.eclass: Allow .jar files in sitedir

[Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1495 bytes --]

Sam James <sam@gentoo.org> writes:

> Eli Schwartz <eschwartz@gentoo.org> writes:
>
>> On 8/25/24 11:33 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> Closes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/937642
>>> Signed-off-by: Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org>
>>> ---
>>>  eclass/distutils-r1.eclass | 2 ++
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>> 
>>> diff --git a/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass b/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
>>> index 0f9dc8d14d5e..39705c5c3c84 100644
>>> --- a/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
>>> +++ b/eclass/distutils-r1.eclass
>>> @@ -2109,8 +2109,10 @@ _distutils-r1_post_python_install() {
>>>  		local strays=()
>>>  		local p
>>>  		mapfile -d $'\0' -t strays < <(
>>> +			# jar for jpype, https://bugs.gentoo.org/937642
>>>  			find "${sitedir}" -maxdepth 1 -type f '!' '(' \
>>>  					-name '*.egg-info' -o \
>>> +					-name '*.jar' -o \
>>>  					-name '*.pth' -o \
>>>  					-name '*.py' -o \
>>>  					-name '*.pyi' -o \
>>
>>
>> Copying my comment from the bug report:
>>
>> I don't think it makes sense to add a special exception for jar files.
>> If we think that packages may be legitimately storing *data* files at
>> the top level, we should either relax the check in general, or allow
>> adding a suppression variable for packages to suppress this check.
>
> Unfortunately, I think I agree -- we should probably blacklist, not whitelist.

Or maybe we keep it as-is but with an opt-out var, with documentation
saying not to use it without strong justification.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 377 bytes --]