| 1 |
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Ferris McCormick <fmccor@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:50:47 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Jan Kundrát <jkt@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> Ferris McCormick wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > 'cp -i' will at least ask a question, and I find that marginally better |
| 7 |
>> > --- it's confusing, but at least it says something. But it seems to me |
| 8 |
>> > that if we hit this case, no one (including the package owner) knows |
| 9 |
>> > which .xml file to use, so stopping the build makes sense, but do it |
| 10 |
>> > with some message that explains exactly what is going on. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> The problem is that the whole build won't *abort*, but rather become |
| 13 |
>> interactive. |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> I for one think that having it die (in the unlikely case that s |
| 16 |
>> developer made a mistake) is better than letting it hang indefinitely |
| 17 |
>> (in the unlikely case that a developer made a mistake) :). |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That's what I meant by "stopping the build". My concern is that when |
| 20 |
> we do stop the build, we do it with some useful error message and make |
| 21 |
> it clear that the user did not screw up and so should do something to |
| 22 |
> fix it. ("die file exists" looks to me like an attempt to ask the user |
| 23 |
> to fix something, not an ebuild problem.) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Sure. Makes sense. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> As I think about it, I am not sure how this could happen. It would |
| 29 |
> either be an ebuild that the package owner never tried or a change in |
| 30 |
> the source file. And why wouldn't a change in the source file cause an |
| 31 |
> immediate termination because the length would suddenly be wrong? And |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regardless of *how* it happens, my only point is to not put any |
| 34 |
interactiveness in ebuilds for *whatever* reason. If it does prompt |
| 35 |
for a response (again, for whatever reason) then all of portage's |
| 36 |
background features are "broke" (waiting for input). So, as I |
| 37 |
suggested in irc, the two solutions are to use the suggested method in |
| 38 |
the OP or to set PROPERTIES=interactive in the ebuild..either way will |
| 39 |
work. I would personally avoid the properties route on ebuilds that I |
| 40 |
write though because it doesn't *need* to be interactive. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-Jeremy |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> if the now-upstream-supplied build.xml file is different from the one |
| 45 |
> the developer put together, wouldn't you probably want a revision bump |
| 46 |
> at that point? |
| 47 |
>> Think about |
| 48 |
>> insane users setting up cronjobs and what not... |
| 49 |
>> |
| 50 |
>> Cheers, |
| 51 |
>> -jkt |
| 52 |
>> |
| 53 |
>> -- |
| 54 |
>> cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
| 55 |
>> |
| 56 |
> Clearly, I misspoke when I said I'd not respond further. :) |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> Regards, |
| 59 |
> Ferris |
| 60 |
> -- |
| 61 |
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmccor@g.o> |
| 62 |
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees) |
| 63 |
> |
Archives