On Sunday 07 February 2010 17:19:43 Zac Medico wrote: > On 02/07/2010 01:10 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote: > > Wouldn't it be a good idea to use "set -e" in the ebuild environment ? > > I've seen cases of ebuilds calling epatch without inheriting from eutils > > which compiled and installed (apparently) fine but possibly broken > > binaries. Examples of cases where "set -e" would have helped: 303849, > > 297063, 260279, 221257, > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=command+not+found > > and perhaps others I haven't managed to find in bugzilla > > I don't know what kind of side-effects set -e would introduce, but > we can easily add a repoman check for epatch calls without eutils > inherit.
if we wanted to specifically target semi-common errors (and i think 'epatch'
w/out eutils.eclass falls into this category), then a repoman check would be
good.
it might also be useful to add a default epatch() to the initial env that
would be clobbered when the inherit occurred.
epatch() { die "you need to inherit eutils.eclass to use epatch" ; }
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
