Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:34:55
Message-Id: 4E948C2E.2000706@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild by Fabian Groffen
1 On 10/11/2011 09:13 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
2 > On 11-10-2011 21:01:40 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
3 >> On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
4 >>> On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
5 >>>> So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
6 >>>> and not crapping all over the package?
7 >>>
8 >>> How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
9 >>> ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego for example),
10 >>> and I do allow you to make a lot of changes to my packages. Just don't
11 >>> force your style and preferences on me.
12 >>
13 >> So basically you are saying you reverted tehnically correct changes for
14 >> cosmetics. What ticked you off, the \ lines changes? I believe that was
15 >> the only change that wasn't about fixing something broken.
16 >
17 > No, you broke the package for Prefix. Next you bumped it to EAPI=4,
18 > then you removed SRC_URI for no particular reason, dropped libtool files
19 > and dropped static archives. Next to this you did some reordering and
20 > other cosmetic changes.
21 >
22 >> And so have you, changed dozens of my ebuilds for PREFIX compability or
23 >> other random fixes, not everything turned out correct, mistakes were
24 >> made and were clearly accidental. I've fixed them instead of wasting
25 >> both of our times. Is it too much to ask for same in return?
26 >
27 > I already told you that you can change quite a lot to my ebuilds,
28 > without me complaining. Do you mind me reverting your stuff and redoing
29 > it now?
30 >
31 >
32
33 Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen
34 the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial.
35
36 I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
37 duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find
38 when rm is more than enough, ...

Replies