| 1 |
W dniu śro, 30.08.2017 o godzinie 13∶35 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico |
| 2 |
napisał: |
| 3 |
> On 08/30/2017 01:31 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > W dniu śro, 30.08.2017 o godzinie 10∶48 -0700, użytkownik Zac Medico |
| 5 |
> > napisał: |
| 6 |
> > > On 08/30/2017 02:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > The value of get_libdir depends on the profile, and so it is not useful |
| 8 |
> > > > for dependency calculations. Furthermore, it seems that Portage does |
| 9 |
> > > > not handle defining it in global scope well due to EAPI checking magic. |
| 10 |
> > > > Ban it completely where it is defined as EAPI function to let developers |
| 11 |
> > > > catch their mistakes early rather than see them as 'command not found' |
| 12 |
> > > > errors during dependency calculation / cache updates. |
| 13 |
> > > > |
| 14 |
> > > > Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/629010 |
| 15 |
> > > > --- |
| 16 |
> > > > bin/ebuild.sh | 1 + |
| 17 |
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) |
| 18 |
> > > > |
| 19 |
> > > > diff --git a/bin/ebuild.sh b/bin/ebuild.sh |
| 20 |
> > > > index a400ef72e..f1ac3f278 100755 |
| 21 |
> > > > --- a/bin/ebuild.sh |
| 22 |
> > > > +++ b/bin/ebuild.sh |
| 23 |
> > > > @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@ else |
| 24 |
> > > > use useq usev use_with use_enable" |
| 25 |
> > > > ___eapi_has_usex && funcs+=" usex" |
| 26 |
> > > > ___eapi_has_in_iuse && funcs+=" in_iuse" |
| 27 |
> > > > + ___eapi_has_get_libdir && funcs+=" get_libdir" |
| 28 |
> > > > # These functions die because calls to them during the "depend" phase |
| 29 |
> > > > # are considered to be severe QA violations. |
| 30 |
> > > > funcs+=" best_version has_version portageq" |
| 31 |
> > > > |
| 32 |
> > > |
| 33 |
> > > It's possible that there are working ebuilds that call get_libdir in |
| 34 |
> > > global scope. Have we done an analysis of the ebuilds in the gentoo |
| 35 |
> > > repository? Obviously, it would be safer to call eqawarn. |
| 36 |
> > |
| 37 |
> > If there were any (more), we'd have caught them during cache regen, |
| 38 |
> > wouldn't we? When I accidentally left it when bumping to EAPI 6, I've |
| 39 |
> > got a bug report almost immediately. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> We'll only catch it during cache regen if we delete all of the previous |
| 42 |
> cache, forcing all of the ebuilds to be sourced again. If all ebuilds in |
| 43 |
> the gentoo tree are compliant, the I think that's good enough for us to |
| 44 |
> die here. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
I'm pretty sure all of them are. However, if someone has resources to |
| 47 |
spare, I'd appreciate running a full regen with the patch to confirm. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
-- |
| 50 |
Best regards, |
| 51 |
Michał Górny |
Archives