Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] Variancy?
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 2010 22:21:41
Message-Id: 20101205222116.310262cc@snowcone
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] Variancy? by Ulrich Mueller
On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 23:13:30 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
> Thank you for your quick response, but this doesn't answer my > questions:
Well, the entire thing's irrelevant, since Portage's implementation ignored all the careful discussion and planning that went into the wording in PMS... But if you're thinking of fixing Portage, then...
> >> Why is the second item needed? Changes to DISTDIR don't alter other > >> packages, so aren't they covered by the first item anyway? Or do I > >> misunderstand the first item's first sentence?
Modifying DISTDIR's technically modifying things on /. Or at least, it can be interpreted that way, so the clarification's needed.
> >> Which of the following examples count as "variancy"? > >> - Calling enewuser() in pkg_setup,
That's a "simple addition of something that doesn't alter other packages", unless you go out of your way to concoct a deliberately perverse counterexample.
> >> - Removing orphan files in pkg_setup,
Depends upon whether doing so modifies other packages. Although, orphan stuff is a job for pkg_preinst or pkg_postinst, not pkg_setup.
> >> - Calling pkg_pretend.
pkg_pretend's sandboxed and isn't supposed to be modifying /, so that should be ok. -- Ciaran McCreesh


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] Variancy? Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>