| 1 |
On Sun, 2021-12-26 at 09:44 +0000, Marek Szuba wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 13 December 2021 17:24:18 UTC, Mart Raudsepp <leio@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Actually I kind of preferred a static name over straight mktemp, |
| 6 |
> > because emktemp supported other cases than a pure mktemp usage does. |
| 7 |
> > But I don't know if it could ever clash things in some weird |
| 8 |
> > situations. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> That last part is the message I tried to convey in my e-mail, sorry if I wasn't clear enough. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Anyway, could anyone with more Postage/PMS experience weigh in on this? If it is indeed safe then the eclass could be modified further, e.g. to use static names with EAPI-8+ but stick with mktemp for older EAPIs just to be safe. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I suppose it's not specified strictly but T should be safe for all sane |
| 15 |
uses. If it weren't, we'd already be in deep trouble and gnome2-utils |
| 16 |
would be the least of our concerns. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
That said, making this EAPI-conditional is just an unnecessary |
| 19 |
complexity. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Best regards, |
| 23 |
Michał Górny |
Archives