Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Cc: Tom Wijsman <TomWij@g.o>, creffett@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Add repoman check to warn if src_prepare/src_configure are used in EAPI 0/1
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2014 09:44:29
Message-Id: 201401190444.25532.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] Add repoman check to warn if src_prepare/src_configure are used in EAPI 0/1 by Tom Wijsman
1 On Tuesday 14 January 2014 16:15:48 Tom Wijsman wrote:
2 > On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 23:59:11 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
3 > > we probably should just use dev branches in the main repo, at least
4 > > for people who have write access to the repo
5 > >
6 > > dev/$USERNAME/<whatever you want>
7 >
8 > To be more clear, which one? g.o.g.o, GitHub or is one of both fine?
9
10 g.o.g.o
11
12 > > > r'\s*src_(configure|prepare)\s*\(\)'
13 > > >
14 > > > You can then proceed further and move the re outside:
15 > > the idea was to walk a balance between simplicity and
16 > > maintainability. imo, the fixed version above is the best.
17 >
18 > What about the latter improvements about the parentheses?
19
20 seems fine
21
22 > > as long as portage supports an EAPI, i see no reason to omit useful
23 > > checks like this.
24 >
25 > Repeating my original question in different words: Why is it useful?
26
27 people run repoman outside of the main tree. we don't really know their
28 desire for EAPI compatibility. legacy/old portage/who knows. Chromium OS for
29 a long time was restricted to EAPI 4 for two reasons -- it had an old portage
30 version (and upgrading to a newer one regressed performance significantly, so
31 we held off until we could figure out why), and it was using a really old stage3
32 to build the SDK (which means we needed to support upgrading an old system
33 too).
34 -mike

Attachments

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