1 |
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:28:00 +0530 |
2 |
"Arun Raghavan" <arunisgod@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> > Then we're back to having people do dobin || die, which is precisely |
4 |
> > what we're trying to solve. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Not really. Can't dobin be like so: |
7 |
> |
8 |
> fail() { |
9 |
> if hasq strict FEATURES; then |
10 |
> die "$@" |
11 |
> else |
12 |
> ewarn "QA Notice: ${@}. blah foo" |
13 |
> } |
14 |
> |
15 |
> dobin() { |
16 |
> dobin.sh "${@}" || fail "dobin failed" |
17 |
> } |
18 |
|
19 |
Like I said... A lot of these utilities have to work with xargs. |
20 |
|
21 |
> >> It should not be necessary to define a new EAPI to make sure |
22 |
> >> packages are not broken. |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > Yes it should. It's a change in behaviour in functionality upon |
25 |
> > which quite a lot of things depend. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> This is not functionality. It is the lack thereof. Making this part of |
28 |
> an EAPI makes it opt-in, which it shouldn't be. It is important for QA |
29 |
> and should be mandatory for all ebuilds. |
30 |
|
31 |
That's not how it works. We've seen plenty of times in the past |
32 |
that forcing QA by making users' systems break (which is how far these |
33 |
things get before they're fixed) just leads to lots of annoyed users. |
34 |
EAPI, plus slowly moving things towards new EAPIs on version bumps once |
35 |
newer EAPIs are widely supported, is the clean way of doing this. |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Ciaran McCreesh |