On 23/03/17 21:42, Alexis Ballier wrote:
>
> If we were to stop thinking and follow the rule by the letter: What are
> we waiting for to file bugs for every package having ${FILESDIR}
> somewhere in global scope then ?
> After all, those are the council approved versions and EAPIs cannot
> change.
On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 22:42 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:20:59 -0400
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>
> > On 03/23/2017 04:22 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > >
> > > Indeed, according to pms.git commit log, the rule was laxed
> > > because
> > > it was clearly an oversight in E
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 22:37:49 +0100
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:30:40 +
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:22:54 +0100
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > Indeed, according to pms.git commit log, the rule was laxed
> > > because it was clearly an oversight in
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:20:59 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/23/2017 04:22 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, according to pms.git commit log, the rule was laxed because
> > it was clearly an oversight in EAPI6 [1] and was the standard
> > behavior in previous EAPIs. But in the same
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:30:40 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:22:54 +0100
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > Indeed, according to pms.git commit log, the rule was laxed because
> > it was clearly an oversight in EAPI6 [1] and was the standard
> > behavior in previous EAPIs. But in
On 03/23/2017 04:22 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
Indeed, according to pms.git commit log, the rule was laxed because it
was clearly an oversight in EAPI6 [1] and was the standard behavior in
previous EAPIs. But in the same commit, an "harmless note" was added
that "Ebuilds must not access the direc
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 21:22:54 +0100
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> Indeed, according to pms.git commit log, the rule was laxed because it
> was clearly an oversight in EAPI6 [1] and was the standard behavior in
> previous EAPIs. But in the same commit, an "harmless note" was added
> that "Ebuilds must not
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:00:12 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> On czw, 2017-03-23 at 19:52 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:53:25 +0100
> > Michał Górny wrote:
> >
> > > On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100
> >
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:49:15 +0100
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:17:43 +
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:12:04 +0100
> > Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > However, retroactively adding new rules
> >
> > Which, as you've already been told, is not what hap
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:17:43 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:12:04 +0100
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > However, retroactively adding new rules
>
> Which, as you've already been told, is not what happened. Sit back,
> enjoy the tree getting slightly less terrible, and stop
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 20:12:04 +0100
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> However, retroactively adding new rules
Which, as you've already been told, is not what happened. Sit back,
enjoy the tree getting slightly less terrible, and stop trying to find
alternative facts to justify standing in the way of progres
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:46:35 +
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:41:01 +0100
> Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > The PMS[0] says
> > >
> > >Ebuilds must not access [FILESDIR] in global scope.
> > >
> > > But, for example, autoconf-2.69-r2.ebuild does,
> > >
> > >if [[ -z $
On czw, 2017-03-23 at 19:52 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:53:25 +0100
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100
> > > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Am Dienstag, 21. März 201
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:52:13 +0100
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > Do you think really think it's fine for maintainer to:
> >
> > 1. go against best practices, principle of least surprise and
> > basically make it harder for anyone else to touch the ebuild (-> aim
> > for bus factor of 1 and/or making
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:53:25 +0100
Michał Górny wrote:
> On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100
> > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> >
> > > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K.
> > > Huettel:
> > > >
> > > > So w
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:41:01 +0100
Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > The PMS[0] says
> >
> >Ebuilds must not access [FILESDIR] in global scope.
> >
> > But, for example, autoconf-2.69-r2.ebuild does,
> >
> >if [[ -z ${__EBLITS__} && -n ${FILESDIR} ]] ; then
> > source "${FILESDIR}"/eblits/
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 12:36:24 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/23/2017 09:36 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> >>
> >> No, the argument is about "we want to clean up the tree from
> >> abusive hacks".
> >
> > This is yours. Mike's answer is merely asking for proper
> > justification and doesn't s
Alike the PMS-defined phases, sub-phases do not support leaving jobs
behind. To avoid leaving something accidentally, make sure to reap all
jobs (i.e. wait) post running the command. Warn if any stray processes
are found since that indicates a bug in ebuild.
---
eclass/multibuild.eclass | 12 +
On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100
> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
>
> > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> > >
> > > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack as
> > > ugly as ebli
On 03/23/2017 09:36 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote:
No, the argument is about "we want to clean up the tree from abusive
hacks".
This is yours. Mike's answer is merely asking for proper justification
and doesn't seem to have had an answer yet.
The PMS[0] says
Ebuilds must not access [FILESDIR]
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:55:42 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 23. März 2017, 10:51:01 CET schrieb Alexis Ballier:
> > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100
> >
> > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> > > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K.
> > > Huettel:
> >
Am Donnerstag, 23. März 2017, 10:51:01 CET schrieb Alexis Ballier:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100
>
> "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> > Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> > > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack as
> > > ugly as e
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100
"Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
> >
> > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack as
> > ugly as eblits?
> >
>
> No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for
Am Dienstag, 21. März 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. Huettel:
>
> So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack as ugly as
> eblits?
>
No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for eblits.
--
Andreas K. Hüttel
dilfri...@gentoo.org
Gentoo Linux developer (coun
24 matches
Mail list logo
