Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Small cleanup of ebuild-functions.tex
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:34:19
Message-Id: 20090920173412.74e4f9d8@snowcone
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Small cleanup of ebuild-functions.tex by Patrick Lauer
1 On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:21:48 +0200
2 Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o> wrote:
3 > > > First change: the test phase is only run when enabled. Since PMS
4 > > > doesn't document FEATURES yet we can only say "if tests are
5 > > > enabled" instead of being more precise. Well, defining FEATURES
6 > > > shouldn't be too hard, but that's for another day.
7 > >
8 > > Please cross-reference that to the part where we explain that
9 > > src_test is run at user option.
10 > I fail to find such a thing in current PMS.
11
12 Grep for 'src-test-required', and bear in mind what I said about "so
13 that the user option part is explained even if kdebuild is disabled".
14 That language really should be in even if kdebuild is turned off,
15 especially if we're explicitly stating that src_test is optional.
16
17 > > You might also want to tidy up the language on
18 > > that so that the user option part is explained even if kdebuild is
19 > > disabled.
20 > I suggest we do as you suggested yesterday and remove kdebuild
21 > unconditionally. That saves hacking around something that cannot be
22 > in the final version anyway.
23
24 I suggest you stop trying to push a political agenda when doing so just
25 makes life harder for the people who have to use PMS.
26
27 > > Actually, this one's a bit of a mess, thanks to Portage making a
28 > > non-EAPI-controlled order change that was supposed to go in in EAPI
29 > > 2 but didn't.
30 > Yeah, messy thing. But as you are well aware there was no sane way to
31 > make that change EAPI-dependant without causing ambiguous situation
32 > and much more confusion.
33
34 Actually, there was a perfectly clean way of doing it, and Zac even
35 agreed to do it that way before he went and implemented it
36 unconditionally. The change was supposed to be going through as part of
37 EAPI 2.
38
39 > > If you're updating it, please do so to accurately reflect
40 > > both orders that can be and are used.
41 > Any version of portage in use uses the "later" version.
42
43 That's not how the system works. We're supposed to be documenting what
44 ebuilds may rely upon from compliant package managers. Since there are
45 compliant package managers that use both behaviours, the
46 documentation's supposed to reflect that.
47
48 > Feel free to document historic behaviour if you want, but as PMS
49 > hasn't documented it before I'd put it in the errata section.
50
51 Doesn't PMS currently document the old way of doing it, not the new way?
52
53 --
54 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Small cleanup of ebuild-functions.tex Patrick Lauer <patrick@g.o>