| 1 |
On Friday 28 October 2005 19:35, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 11:50:02PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 4 |
> >>On Wednesday 26 October 2005 23:56, Jason Stubbs wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>>I've attached a quickly thrown together patch for it, which works here, |
| 6 |
> >>> but we really need to get this whole thing down pat. Perhaps usage of |
| 7 |
> >>> doebuild without specifying tree should be deprecated and the code |
| 8 |
> >>> audited for any usage without it? Making tree a keyword parameter will |
| 9 |
> >>> break too many external things so that's not really an option... |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >>Updated patch; I missed a call to merge(). I really don't like this patch |
| 12 |
> >>though because it touches way too much stuff. Anybody have any ideas for |
| 13 |
> >> a better way of doing it? |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > Offhand, don't pass mytree around like that; pass it into the |
| 16 |
> > constructor, assign to the obj's namespace, and have treelink pass the |
| 17 |
> > saved value into doebuild. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > That's how I did it in 2.1 at least; been a long while, but don't |
| 20 |
> > recall any major issues with that route. Plus side, heck of a lot |
| 21 |
> > less modification to methods signatures, just the objects behaviour. |
| 22 |
> > ~harring |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I adapted Jason's patch to go along with the dblink.treetype bit from 2.1 |
| 25 |
> and it seems to work alright. The only notable difference from Jason's |
| 26 |
> patch is that tree=self.treetype is passed into doebuild in any case for |
| 27 |
> preinst and postinst (following the lead of 2.1). |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
If tree wasn't being passed to doebuild in my earlier patch, it was only |
| 30 |
because I missed those instances. Using an instance member is much better |
| 31 |
though. I should have picked up that most of the changes were in dblink... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I've adjusted the patch a bit to make all method signature changes into |
| 34 |
keyword arguments. I've also change the default tree to None and added a |
| 35 |
warning message to doebuild when None is passed and defaulting it to tree |
| 36 |
there. With the EAPI changes, passing a tree is really a requirement. If a |
| 37 |
tree isn't passed, it'd be better to alert people to that rather than trying |
| 38 |
to backtrack to it as the cause of the bugs that will inevitably pop up. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
So are we just about ready on this one? |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
-- |
| 43 |
Jason Stubbs |
Archives