| 1 |
On Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:58:48 -0500 |
| 2 |
Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 1:44 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > This is much more complex than the previous version. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The inline comments and debug-print statements are helpful. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Do we have a way to test this with various combinations of |
| 11 |
> PYTHON_COMPAT, PYTHON_TARGETS, eselect python, and USE_PYTHON? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Well, I've just tested it by hand. If someone wants to work on bringing |
| 14 |
tests for it, I don't mind. To be honest, I don't really feel like they |
| 15 |
would be of much use. I tested and fixed what came to my head. I doubt |
| 16 |
tests will be able to find much (especially if I write them); live |
| 17 |
testing will be probably much more useful. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The warning code is imperfect and mostly transitional. It tries to help |
| 20 |
but can't do more than PMS permits it to. It should lie there for some |
| 21 |
time, then we should be able to get rid of it, and forget about |
| 22 |
the whole thing. Considering that, writing tests is IMO mostly a waste |
| 23 |
of time. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> I have some suggestions on the actual warning text below. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> > + if [[ ${warned} ]]; then |
| 28 |
> > + ewarn |
| 29 |
> > + ewarn "Please note that after switching the active Python interpreter," |
| 30 |
> > + ewarn "you may need to run 'python-updater' to ensure the system integrity." |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> Change "ensure the system integrity" to something like "rebuild |
| 33 |
> affected packages". The former statement is awkward and doesn't really |
| 34 |
> explain anything. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Applied. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> > + if [[ ${USE_PYTHON} ]]; then |
| 39 |
> > + ewarn "It seems that your USE_PYTHON setting does list different Python" |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Drop "It seems that"; it softens the statement for no reason. This |
| 42 |
> also applies to a few statements below. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Well, the main reason for that was to emphasis that the check |
| 45 |
is imperfect and the result simply may be wrong. How can I express that |
| 46 |
without adding yet another paragraph to the lengthy enough text? |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> The phrase "does list" looks odd in English. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Right. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
> Replace with "Your USE_PYTHON setting lists different Python ...". |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> > + ewarn "implementations than your PYTHON_TARGETS variable. Please consider" |
| 55 |
> > + ewarn "using the following value instead:" |
| 56 |
> > + ewarn |
| 57 |
> > + ewarn " USE_PYTHON='\033[35m${old[@]}${new[@]+ \033[1m${new[@]}}\033[0m'" |
| 58 |
> > + |
| 59 |
> > + if [[ ${removed[@]} ]]; then |
| 60 |
> > + ewarn |
| 61 |
> > + ewarn "(removed \033[31m${removed[@]}\033[0m)" |
| 62 |
> > + fi |
| 63 |
> > + else |
| 64 |
> > + ewarn "It seems that you need to set USE_PYTHON to make sure that legacy" |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> s/It seems that you need/You should/ |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
The same as above. Two 'it seems' with different values vs 'you should' |
| 69 |
with two different values. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
> |
| 72 |
> > + ewarn "packages will be built with respect to PYTHON_TARGETS correctly:" |
| 73 |
> > + ewarn |
| 74 |
> > + ewarn " USE_PYTHON='\033[35;1m${new[@]}\033[0m'" |
| 75 |
> > + fi |
| 76 |
> > + |
| 77 |
> > + ewarn |
| 78 |
> > + ewarn "Please note that after changing the USE_PYTHON variable, you may need" |
| 79 |
> > + ewarn "to run 'python-updater' to ensure the system integrity." |
| 80 |
> |
| 81 |
> Again, s/ensure the system integrity/rebuild affected packages/. |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
Applied. |
| 84 |
|
| 85 |
-- |
| 86 |
Best regards, |
| 87 |
Michał Górny |
Archives