gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

07-01-2011, 08:03 AM

Ð’ Ð§Ñ‚Ð², 30/06/2011 Ð² 19:27 +0000, Sebastian Pipping (sping) Ð¿Ð¸ÑˆÐµÑ‚:
> Log:
> net-misc/aria2: Bump to 1.12.0, looks trivial
>
> EAPI="2"
>
> inherit bash-completion
...
> pkg_setup() {
> if use scripts && use !xmlrpc && use !metalink; then
> ewarn "Please also enable the 'xmlrpc' USE flag to actually use the additional scripts"
> fi
> }

This really calls for REQUIRED_USE from EAPI="4".

REQUIRED_USE="scripts? ( ^^ ( xmlrpc metalink ) )"

> src_install() {
> emake DESTDIR="${D}" install || die "emake install failed"
>
> rm -rf "${D}/usr/share/doc/aria2"

|| die

--
Peter.

07-01-2011, 08:09 AM

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:03:41 +0400
Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > pkg_setup() {
> > if use scripts && use !xmlrpc && use !metalink; then
>
> This really calls for REQUIRED_USE from EAPI="4".
>
> REQUIRED_USE="scripts? ( ^^ ( xmlrpc metalink ) )"

That's not the same condition as the one in the pkg_setup.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

07-01-2011, 01:23 PM

Ð’ ÐŸÑ‚Ð½, 01/07/2011 Ð² 09:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh Ð¿Ð¸ÑˆÐµÑ‚:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:03:41 +0400
> Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > pkg_setup() {
> > > if use scripts && use !xmlrpc && use !metalink; then
> >
> > This really calls for REQUIRED_USE from EAPI="4".
> >
> > REQUIRED_USE="scripts? ( ^^ ( xmlrpc metalink ) )"
>
> That's not the same condition as the one in the pkg_setup.

Ah, yea. I guess any of xmlrpc or metalink are required for scripts. So,
correct one should be:

REQUIRED_USE="scripts? ( || ( xmlrpc metalink ) )"

--
Peter.

07-01-2011, 07:25 PM

On 07/01/2011 10:03 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> Ð’ Ð§Ñ‚Ð², 30/06/2011 Ð² 19:27 +0000, Sebastian Pipping (sping) Ð¿Ð¸ÑˆÐµÑ‚:
>> Log:
>> net-misc/aria2: Bump to 1.12.0, looks trivial
>>
>> EAPI="2"
>>
>> inherit bash-completion
> ...
>> pkg_setup() {
>> if use scripts && use !xmlrpc && use !metalink; then
>> ewarn "Please also enable the 'xmlrpc' USE flag to actually use the additional scripts"
>> fi
>> }
>
> This really calls for REQUIRED_USE from EAPI="4".
>
> REQUIRED_USE="scripts? ( ^^ ( xmlrpc metalink ) )"

If we use EAPI 4 in that ebuild we cannot make it stable anytime soon,
correct?

Sebastian

07-01-2011, 07:33 PM

On 07/01/11 21:25, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
[SNIP]
> If we use EAPI 4 in that ebuild we cannot make it stable anytime soon,
> correct?

As far as I'm aware we have a stable portage with EAPI 4 in the tree for
a few weeks now, so you can actively use it everywhere.

--
Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org

Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist
Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

07-02-2011, 01:36 AM

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 01-07-2011 19:33, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 07/01/11 21:25, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> If we use EAPI 4 in that ebuild we cannot make it stable anytime soon,
>> correct?
>
> As far as I'm aware we have a stable portage with EAPI 4 in the tree for
> a few weeks now, so you can actively use it everywhere.

This prompted me to search the council meeting logs about EAPI 4 use for
stable packages. Contrary to my recollection, this topic fell off the
council radar a few months ago.
In any case, as decided in the February[1] meeting, EAPI 4 was approved
for tree use. The first portage version with EAPI-4 support[2] was
marked stable over 3 months ago[3].
I did a quick grep in the tree and count over 500 ebuilds with EAPI 4
and amd64 or x86 keywords, so we already have quite a few EAPI=4 stable
packages in the tree.

[1] -
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110201-summary.txt
[2] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/358009
[3] -
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/portage/portage-2.1.9.42.ebuild?view=log

- --
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJODnYtAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEPub8P/1hYj/8jyw6eligk+pUV3P8W
/yUK/71w3Em151IlVF4nkCRLhCM0FW+TpqVcmau/EKja5wzL/X+vaIaGKwjqfh39
Z3O0cjCs8hV/SZ/AscHkdiLG4TmL8M0zeHmTc7xKw1FW7QuLe6nOuZoBOSlYVwqX
M+g/dm/snxQcfsxn0YNNn2g/GYrk8whUg6YBmqdqSlElh5xJS1Zvi+BokAPQqgu8
mK4DMs2yxEb6aOXsvCYDiwLgPfxZVCbAkXoqqEOQtHjoA76lDU t3LByP11fCTZXo
ysUqDlXbL98ToX/jPRNNDLjdFKKKnaTcYjdEM1mzyou1i/tvQWJaTuvPrZzPohCy
ph21dEJKEq70ECSCBUr26HQ9bOSyEDcyV415SENFt1Rp8lXhK4 dIwPDXsMrHkC1F
DzBa/8sGwFjtlLqj+x2pOzROx8lBrSRZE7vVwW4fabpoqM1VSqtqQSs QLufqpzz5
MpEtvf8kr9d6G2rHUzEDN0PuOj5ouwEi0AyG0IutAgIRx7UO4S mGrY0tbfImdgvd
O9ynGdbrGd9zlRBsbrdtGHlNmAzF8C9+ZgxzMUduHKFfNNYdPe AmV6lO8EjZDKF6
PLyUVKx0dh1RUsYwtJRV/RSWzRjtuqeoLDjMR5lxchB+MaF4qw1FGYTiU/Sg6Szw
gUmWGfpa/FQzM6uThtmp
=TiQL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

07-03-2011, 10:36 PM

Peter Volkov wrote:
>>
>> rm -rf "${D}/usr/share/doc/aria2"
>
> || die

`rm -f` never fails -- if the target does not exist, then rm simply returns
true. (The only reason it would fail that I can think of is /bin/rm not
existing, in which case you have a bigger problem.)

To test, try `rm -f /nonexistant/file; echo $?`

--
Jonathan Callen

07-03-2011, 10:49 PM

On 2011-07-03, Jonathan Callen <abcd@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Peter Volkov wrote:
>>>
>>> rm -rf "${D}/usr/share/doc/aria2"
>>
>> || die
>
> `rm -f` never fails -- if the target does not exist, then rm simply returns
> true. (The only reason it would fail that I can think of is /bin/rm not
> existing, in which case you have a bigger problem.)
>
> To test, try `rm -f /nonexistant/file; echo $?`

jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -f testfile
rm: cannot remove `testfile': Operation not permitted
jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
1
jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -rf testdir
rm: cannot remove `testdir/test': Permission denied
jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
1

--
Suddenly, the door crashed open. Outside, purple prose rained down
like a bad metaphor.
--SteveD on RPGnet

07-05-2011, 11:05 PM

2011/7/3 Paul Arthur <junk+usenet@flowerysong.com>:
> On 2011-07-03, Jonathan Callen <abcd@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Peter Volkov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> rm -rf "${D}/usr/share/doc/aria2"
>>>
>>> || die
>>
>> `rm -f` never fails -- if the target does not exist, then rm simply returns
>> true. (The only reason it would fail that I can think of is /bin/rm not
>> existing, in which case you have a bigger problem.)
>>
>> To test, try `rm -f /nonexistant/file; echo $?`
>
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -f testfile
> rm: cannot remove `testfile': Operation not permitted
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
> 1

rm -f "chuck norris"
rm: cannot remove `Chuck Norris': Operation not contemplated
echo $?
42

> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -rf testdir
> rm: cannot remove `testdir/test': Permission denied
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
> 1
>
>
> --
> Suddenly, the door crashed open. Outside, purple prose rained down
> like a bad metaphor.
> * *--SteveD on RPGnet
>
>
>

07-05-2011, 11:29 PM

On Sunday, July 03, 2011 18:49:52 Paul Arthur wrote:
> On 2011-07-03, Jonathan Callen <abcd@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Peter Volkov wrote:
> >>> rm -rf "${D}/usr/share/doc/aria2"
> >>>
> >> || die
> >
> > `rm -f` never fails -- if the target does not exist, then rm simply
> > returns true. (The only reason it would fail that I can think of is
> > /bin/rm not existing, in which case you have a bigger problem.)
> >
> > To test, try `rm -f /nonexistant/file; echo $?`
>
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -f testfile
> rm: cannot remove `testfile': Operation not permitted
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
> 1
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -rf testdir
> rm: cannot remove `testdir/test': Permission denied
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
> 1

if this occurs *inside the ebuild env*, then most likely something else is
screwed up and will be caught anyways

personally, i generally like to use:
rm -r "${D}"/usr/share/doc/aria2 || die
that way when the package stops installing aria2, i notice and can remove the
call to `rm` altogether ...
-mike