Re: [gentoo-dev] cmake-utils.eclass and bug 475502

[Zac Medico]

On 07/18/2013 12:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> Dnia 2013-07-17, o godz. 17:42:32
> "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@g.o> napisał(a):
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>
>> On 07/17/2013 05:34 PM, hasufell wrote:
>>> On 07/17/2013 11:28 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote:
>>>> ...and that is why it isn't permitted to directly use an eclass
>>>> that you don't inherit.  While I agree testing could (should) have
>>>> been better, the fact that people ignore the rules for writing
>>>> ebuilds shouldn't entirely fall on the KDE team.
>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't matter in the slightest whos fault it is or who should be
>>> blamed.
>>>
>>> It is about maintaining stability for the user. Especially when it
>>> comes to stable ebuilds.
>>>
>>> That means the methods for eclass changes must be more thoroughly.
>
>> I completely agree with you, the changes should have been tested better.
>>  The ebuilds with these errors popping up ALSO should have been tested
>> better.  Considering this is a QA violation, perhaps it is possible to
>> add a check in repoman for using something from an eclass which you
>> didn't inherit.  I doubt the slowdown would be horrible and clearly it
>> would catch a huge number of QA violations.
>
> Repoman has such check already. It pops up for specific functions
> listed in repoman source code. This allows us to catch the common
> mistakes while avoiding false positives.
>
> Maybe it should always pop up for phase functions. I don't immediately
> see a reason why an ebuild would use a phase function of an eclass it
> doesn't inherit directly.

That check is only enabled in portage-2.2, because I really want it to
parse the relevant info directly from the eclasses. That way, we won't
have to update repoman for eclass changes.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac