From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB16D1396D9 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:43:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D6AD0E10DD; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:43:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8A5E5E108B for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:43:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot (d202-252.icpnet.pl [109.173.202.252]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E4992335DEF; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 13:43:07 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1510494184.22960.3.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Help testing ebuilds? golang/Fabio load balancer From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 14:43:04 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1eed4490-6e21-42bf-6546-e73013d30b35@gentoo.org> References: <05c08f65-3cf6-67f4-621e-cf210fe2a82c@gentoo.org> <1510387105.1210.2.camel@gentoo.org> <1510428406.2446.2.camel@gentoo.org> <1eed4490-6e21-42bf-6546-e73013d30b35@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.5 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 649c2f6f-72e4-4e35-95ef-de320202849a X-Archives-Hash: e46a17f22dd06c9365f4fecedc2b8fff W dniu nie, 12.11.2017 o godzinie 07∶53 -0500, użytkownik Michael Orlitzky napisał: > On 11/11/2017 02:26 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > > As far as the actual implementation goes, I'm not sure that > > > automatically-generated ".keep" files are better than having the package > > > manager maintain its own database. The latter would be more complex, but > > > would avoid littering everyone's filesystems with ".keep" files. > > > > Do you care enough to spec this properly, introduce EAPI-conditional > > behavior for it and prepare patches for the package managers? > > > > Some day -- I'll add it to my list. For now I'll update the docs to > explain why you should use keepdir, and do a QA warning for empty > directories. I'm not convinced a QA warning is valid, given that not every empty directory is meaningful. You're going to either cause people to create unnecessary 'keepdir's, or to be swamped by false positives. > Then how does this sound for EAPI=next? > > * Ban keepdir. > > * Have portage call its keepdir code on any empty directories in $D > between src_install and pkg_preinst. How does this account for /run and other non-persistent locations? > * Update the devmanual and portage documentation to suggest dodir > instead of keepdir in the new EAPI. > > * Change the PMS to remove "undefined behavior" and replace it with > "empty directories must be tracked, and may only be removed once no > installed package is using them," or something along those lines. > That leaves the implementation up to the PM. ...and makes interoperability between different package managers impossible, defeating the purpose of PMS in the first place. -- Best regards, Michał Górny