1 |
On 26 August 2013 19:38, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Hello, all. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> I've noticed that some people are using internal eclass functions |
6 |
> in their ebuilds. I mean, functions that are explicitly marked |
7 |
> @INTERNAL and that start with an underscore. What should I do to them? |
8 |
> |
9 |
> |
10 |
Not sure if this is a warnings/error category yet, but imo, repoman should |
11 |
at least warn about this if at all possible. |
12 |
|
13 |
|
14 |
> I would expect that Gentoo developers are professionals. Or at least |
15 |
> semi-reasonable people. Yet it seems that I was mistaken. |
16 |
> |
17 |
|
18 |
Sometimes in the case of "I accept my code will be broken in the future", |
19 |
then its somewhat acceptable by proxy to use internal functions. Though |
20 |
granted, if this is in an ebuild, then that ebuild should not be stabilized |
21 |
imo. |
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
> We were never pinged about the internal function use. Nobody bothered |
25 |
> to ask us why the function is internal and what they should they use |
26 |
> instead. I guess it was the usual 'it works, i don't care' case. |
27 |
> |
28 |
> What should I do now? Mask the ebuild? Proceed with changing |
29 |
> the function and break it? |
30 |
> |
31 |
|
32 |
I would consider that acceptable, because an ebuild that uses an internal |
33 |
function, is something I would consider "already broken", as using an |
34 |
internal function is acknowledging an inevitable breakage will occur. |
35 |
|
36 |
|
37 |
> Or maybe do we need to have GPG signature verification of bash |
38 |
> tracebacks in every internal function to prevent developers from using |
39 |
> those? |
40 |
> |
41 |
|
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
> -- |
45 |
> Best regards, |
46 |
> Michał Górny |
47 |
> |
48 |
|
49 |
|
50 |
|
51 |
-- |
52 |
Kent |
53 |
|
54 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) |
55 |
for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
56 |
|
57 |
http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz |