Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] die/QA notice for do* failure?
Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:51:20
Message-Id: 20080608175112.1dab4781@googlemail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] die/QA notice for do* failure? by Arun Raghavan
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] die/QA notice for do* failure? Arun Raghavan <arunisgod@×××××.com>