| 1 |
On Tuesday 28 February 2006 15:10, Jakub Moc wrote: |
| 2 |
> 28.2.2006, 20:59:42, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday 28 February 2006 12:51, Renat Lumpau wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 05:11:57PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> > And it sticks out a nasty ewarn and says that the ebuild is probably |
| 6 |
> >> > broken. |
| 7 |
> >> |
| 8 |
> >> Which it _probably_ is. See, this is a numbers game. In most cases, if |
| 9 |
> >> you use the webapp eclass, setting SLOT="0" is incorrect. There are some |
| 10 |
> >> cases in which it's just fine. Until FEATURES="mindreader" is |
| 11 |
> >> implemented, how is the eclass to know what you're trying to do? So it |
| 12 |
> >> prints a warning and doesn't die. Number of angry users storming |
| 13 |
> >> bugs.g.o - 0. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > why do you need to be a mindreader ? the user requested they control the |
| 16 |
> > package, thus it isnt a bug, so dont issue a warning |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Sure, and when *ebuild* requested it instead, then portage will be |
| 19 |
> automagically informed. So yeah, we can implement yet another variable into |
| 20 |
> the eclass, and we can do tons of other magic voodoo about three lines of |
| 21 |
> eclass that noone has ever noticed until today, and the whole thing can be |
| 22 |
> a lot more complex for sure. Sorry, I call this a complete waste of time. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
whats your point ? if an ebuild author wants to control the SLOT, then they |
| 25 |
should be able to without having an invalid warning issued on the subject |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
considering the nature of the warning, it should be trivial to make it into a |
| 28 |
proper QA check by having the class see where files were installed and then |
| 29 |
warn/abort if certain conditions are met |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
there's no reason for the user to see this crap |
| 32 |
-mike |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives