FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 10-11-2011, 05:05 PM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
> and not crapping all over the package?

How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego for example),
and I do allow you to make a lot of changes to my packages. Just don't
force your style and preferences on me.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 10-11-2011, 06:01 PM
Samuli Suominen
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
>> and not crapping all over the package?
>
> How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
> ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego for example),
> and I do allow you to make a lot of changes to my packages. Just don't
> force your style and preferences on me.
>
>

So basically you are saying you reverted tehnically correct changes for
cosmetics. What ticked you off, the lines changes? I believe that was
the only change that wasn't about fixing something broken.

And so have you, changed dozens of my ebuilds for PREFIX compability or
other random fixes, not everything turned out correct, mistakes were
made and were clearly accidental. I've fixed them instead of wasting
both of our times. Is it too much to ask for same in return?
 
Old 10-11-2011, 06:13 PM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On 11-10-2011 21:01:40 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
> >> and not crapping all over the package?
> >
> > How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
> > ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego for example),
> > and I do allow you to make a lot of changes to my packages. Just don't
> > force your style and preferences on me.
>
> So basically you are saying you reverted tehnically correct changes for
> cosmetics. What ticked you off, the lines changes? I believe that was
> the only change that wasn't about fixing something broken.

No, you broke the package for Prefix. Next you bumped it to EAPI=4,
then you removed SRC_URI for no particular reason, dropped libtool files
and dropped static archives. Next to this you did some reordering and
other cosmetic changes.

> And so have you, changed dozens of my ebuilds for PREFIX compability or
> other random fixes, not everything turned out correct, mistakes were
> made and were clearly accidental. I've fixed them instead of wasting
> both of our times. Is it too much to ask for same in return?

I already told you that you can change quite a lot to my ebuilds,
without me complaining. Do you mind me reverting your stuff and redoing
it now?


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 10-11-2011, 06:34 PM
Samuli Suominen
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On 10/11/2011 09:13 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 21:01:40 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>> On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>> So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
>>>> and not crapping all over the package?
>>>
>>> How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
>>> ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego for example),
>>> and I do allow you to make a lot of changes to my packages. Just don't
>>> force your style and preferences on me.
>>
>> So basically you are saying you reverted tehnically correct changes for
>> cosmetics. What ticked you off, the lines changes? I believe that was
>> the only change that wasn't about fixing something broken.
>
> No, you broke the package for Prefix. Next you bumped it to EAPI=4,
> then you removed SRC_URI for no particular reason, dropped libtool files
> and dropped static archives. Next to this you did some reordering and
> other cosmetic changes.
>
>> And so have you, changed dozens of my ebuilds for PREFIX compability or
>> other random fixes, not everything turned out correct, mistakes were
>> made and were clearly accidental. I've fixed them instead of wasting
>> both of our times. Is it too much to ask for same in return?
>
> I already told you that you can change quite a lot to my ebuilds,
> without me complaining. Do you mind me reverting your stuff and redoing
> it now?
>
>

Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen
the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial.

I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find
when rm is more than enough, ...
 
Old 10-11-2011, 06:46 PM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On 11-10-2011 21:34:22 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen
> the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial.

Shall we stick to the policy and wait 30 days without bugs first?

> I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
> duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find
> when rm is more than enough, ...

I just like the documented way of doing things [1], so I hope many
people will just stick to that for maintainability, in favour of pseudo
efficiency.


[1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_prepare/epatch/index.html

--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 10-11-2011, 06:50 PM
Matt Turner
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
> duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find
> when rm is more than enough, ...

I haven't looked, but if we don't already, a little style guide would
be very cool. I wouldn't think of most of these things without seeing
it somewhere else first.

It looks like the epatch devmanual page uses multiple calls. :

Matt
 
Old 10-11-2011, 07:38 PM
Samuli Suominen
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On 10/11/2011 09:46 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 21:34:22 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen
>> the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial.
>
> Shall we stick to the policy and wait 30 days without bugs first?

OK, no hurry.

>> I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
>> duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find
>> when rm is more than enough, ...
>
> I just like the documented way of doing things [1], so I hope many
> people will just stick to that for maintainability, in favour of pseudo
> efficiency.
>
>
> [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_prepare/epatch/index.html
>

This document should be fixed. Any comments about the patches belong to
header of those patches, available for possible upstreams as well.
Doesn't belong to ebuilds. So it very rarely makes sense to call epatch
multiple times, and certainly doesn't improve maintainability.

- Samuli
 
Old 10-11-2011, 07:48 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:50:30 -0400
Matt Turner <mattst88@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen
> <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
> > duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of
> > find when rm is more than enough, ...
>
> I haven't looked, but if we don't already, a little style guide would
> be very cool. I wouldn't think of most of these things without seeing
> it somewhere else first.
>
> It looks like the epatch devmanual page uses multiple calls. :

I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
readability. Simple example:

# bug #123456, foo, bar
epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-foo.patch
# bug #234567, baz bazinga blah blah
epatch "${FILESDIR}"/${P}-baz.patch

With multiple arguments, you can't put comments in the middle.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 
Old 10-11-2011, 07:49 PM
Fabian Groffen
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On 11-10-2011 22:38:10 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> This document should be fixed. Any comments about the patches belong to
> header of those patches, available for possible upstreams as well.
> Doesn't belong to ebuilds.

The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it?

> So it very rarely makes sense to call epatch multiple times, and
> certainly doesn't improve maintainability.

Conclusion doesn't follow from argumentation.


--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
 
Old 10-11-2011, 08:00 PM
Samuli Suominen
 
Default gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild

On 10/11/2011 10:49 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> On 11-10-2011 22:38:10 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> This document should be fixed. Any comments about the patches belong to
>> header of those patches, available for possible upstreams as well.
>> Doesn't belong to ebuilds.
>
> The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it?

No, but it should. See below.

>> So it very rarely makes sense to call epatch multiple times, and
>> certainly doesn't improve maintainability.
>
> Conclusion doesn't follow from argumentation.
>
>

http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/clean-patches

Look for "here's a check list of things to keep in the patch header:"
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:15 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org