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 |