Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: More versatile return codes for emerge

[Alec Warner]

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 1:33 AM, Thomas Kahle <tomka@g.o> wrote:
> On 21:04 Wed 25 Jan 2012, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
>> On 1/25/12 10:23 AM, Thomas Kahle wrote:
>> > I suggest that emerge could signal its various failures via return
>> > codes.  That would be useful in automated archtesting:
>> >
>> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400705
>>
>> My opinion is very similar to what Brian Harring said on that bug: some
>> Python API would be much better than still pretty vague return code
>> (what would you do with it?).
>
> My test setup (as you probably know) uses bash scripts (autogenerated by
> app-portage/tatt) that call emerge with various USE-flag combinations
> and then protocol failures to be looked at individually.  Those scripts
> can easily react to return codes.  Sure thing, once the portage API
> access is available, the entire test setup can be rewritten using it.  I
> just don't see this happening anytime soon.  Making the return codes
> more versatile should be quick and easy to implement.  It's very KISS.

I agree, but we have gentoo-portage-dev@g.o for this sort of thing?

-A

>
>> Some ideas:
>>
>> - I emerge a list of packages, some unstable dependencies are required;
>> allow me to get a list of those package atoms
>>
>> - same as above, but return list of USE flags adjustments required
>>
>> - package blocks
>>
>> - unsatisfied USE flag constraints
>>
>> ... and so on. I think it can start very simple and small, and be
>> extended as needed.
>
> I think those ideas are great and natural, but I'd still prefer to have
> something that is usable very soon instead of waiting for the portage
> API to be available (and documented).
>
> Cheers,
> Thomas
>
>
>
> --
> Thomas Kahle
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~tomka/