| 1 |
On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 11:38:56PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
> >On Saturday 29 October 2005 13:20, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> >>I've adjusted the patch a bit to make all method signature changes into |
| 6 |
> >>keyword arguments. I've also change the default tree to None and added a |
| 7 |
> >>warning message to doebuild when None is passed and defaulting it to tree |
| 8 |
> >>there. With the EAPI changes, passing a tree is really a requirement. If a |
| 9 |
> >>tree isn't passed, it'd be better to alert people to that rather than |
| 10 |
> >>trying to backtrack to it as the cause of the bugs that will inevitably |
| 11 |
> >>pop |
| 12 |
> >>up. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> >Many usages of doebuild in emerge - one of which wasn't meant to go to |
| 16 |
> >"porttree". The warning has helped already! ;) |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> >Cleaned up those instances and also fixed a typo (of mine) in |
| 19 |
> >portage.unmerge(). |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I'm using your new patch an it looks good. Nice idea to place that warning |
| 23 |
> in there. I did a recursive grep and found a couple doebuild calls that |
| 24 |
> will generate a warning (see patch). It looks like you're about ready to |
| 25 |
> package up an _rc7 that hopefully will become stable soon. :) |
| 26 |
I'd wrap it to the end of the output personally, since a traceback can |
| 27 |
get a bit long sometimes if there is a lot of frames on the stack. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Aside from that suggestion, no complaints; .53 material, or .54? |
| 30 |
~harring |
Archives