Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] What's going on with the tmpfiles eclasses?
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2019 14:54:37
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] What's going on with the tmpfiles eclasses? by Michael Orlitzky
1 On Fri, 2019-04-26 at 10:26 -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
2 > On 4/26/19 9:32 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
3 > > Whether it can be deleted is up to system's configuration. The current
4 > > solution works for majority of cases, including a. people who use
5 > > systemd or OpenRC, and set their systems to clean it up, and b. people
6 > > who don't use either but don't clean it up.
7 > >
8 > > We can't support everyone, and a small potential minority for whose this
9 > > might not work is no excuse to replace it with a worse solution.
10 > >
11 >
12 >
13 >
14 > I don't believe that one of the world's foremost experts on package
15 > management is stumped trying to configure a common cache directory. But,
16 > I've let you change the subject.
17 >
18 > We're only talking about eix because you gave it as an example of a
19 > package that needs the RDEPEND=virtual/tmpfiles in the eclass, claiming
20 > that it needs tmpfiles_process() to work. Yet you've acknowledged that
21 > this is an eix-specific hack that won't work in some cases.
22 >
23 > In cases like that, adding RDEPEND=virtual/tmpfiles to the ebuild is a
24 > better solution, because (a) the end result is exactly the same, (b) it
25 > keeps the dependency out of the eclass, and (c) it localizes the
26 > dependency to the place that needs it, namely the wacky package.
28 Maybe. However, as I already said, we have determined that (a) it is
29 easier for devs to have the dep in eclass, and (b) it doesn't hurt. If
30 you are really a tmpfiles hater, you can use package.provided and stop
31 harming users through being absurdly pedantic.
33 > In cases like that, using a simple "dodir /var/cache/eix" is a better
34 > solution because (a) the end result is exactly the same, (b) it keeps
35 > the dependency out of the eclass, and (c) doesn't need a dependency on
36 > virtual/tmpfiles at all.
38 No, it isn't 'exactly the same'. (a) it doesn't set correct
39 permissions, and (b) it requires you to reinstall the package every time
40 the directory might disappear.
42 > Both are preferable in the case of app-portage/eix, so I don't buy it as
43 > justification for keeping the RDEPEND in the eclass. Are there better
44 > examples?
46 I'm sorry but this is getting silly. I've provided you with
47 the rationale and with an example. I'm not going to spend half of the
48 day trying to throw more and more examples, so that you'd keep rejecting
49 them, and in the end claim that I haven't provided any justification
50 because you rejected everything.
52 The data you have should be entirely sufficient to understand how things
53 work. If you disagree with it, that's your right. However, your weak
54 counter-arguments aren't going to convince me, and I don't see any
55 purpose in bringing more arguments because I really do see where this
56 is going.
58 --
59 Best regards,
60 Michał Górny


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] What's going on with the tmpfiles eclasses? Michael Orlitzky <mjo@g.o>