| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 15/06/14 05:42 AM, Micha³ Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> Dnia 2014-06-15, o godz. 16:06:57 "Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov" |
| 6 |
> <mva@×××.name> napisa³(a): |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
>> My idea is to allow failing for some patches without breaking |
| 9 |
>> build at all. And, in parallel, to add groupping. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> How I imagine that: |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> etc/portage/patches/app-cat/<name>/ | | - group_name/ | | | |
| 14 |
>> |- 01_foo.patch | |- 02_bar.patch | |- <...> | |- |
| 15 |
>> 01_moo.patch |- 99_meow.patch |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
>> Where every first-level piece (patch or group) in |
| 18 |
>> ```etc/portage/patches/app-cat/<name>/``` MAY tolerably fail (not |
| 19 |
>> causing "die" for emerge), but if one of the patches inside the |
| 20 |
>> group fails, then group MUST NOT be applied at all (and all |
| 21 |
>> previously applied patches from this group MUST be reversed). |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Just don't. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Or more specifically: it's not worth the effort, the extra |
| 26 |
> complexity, the confusion and the wholesale mess involved. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Agreed. patches, or groups thereof, should not ever be fail'able |
| 30 |
without also stopping the emerge process. And the whole |
| 31 |
if-one-fails-then-revert-the-group thing would be hell to implement. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Even if the patch fails because it's determined to have been "already |
| 34 |
applied", there's no guarantee that this check is accurate (ie what |
| 35 |
upstream applied is the same as your patch). Best to just fail, to |
| 36 |
let users know they need to clean up their patches. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 40 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlOfB5kACgkQ2ugaI38ACPDDRgEAujxxI9LLTs8Bj+nNgGgUcG15 |
| 43 |
XLNXD3vtpzbVmtE6MsgBAKAGO4Ysjwt07uVMlXWNqQz31QRUza24/lIOkVafnTDd |
| 44 |
=5G8J |
| 45 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives