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 308541382C5 for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:00:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 24A36E095F; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:00:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.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 C209DE094A for ; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:00:51 +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 6D7A5335CF5; Thu, 29 Mar 2018 17:00:49 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1522342845.1006.24.camel@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: empty directories in ${D} From: =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=C5=82_G=C3=B3rny?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: mjo@gentoo.org Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 19:00:45 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20180329163446.GA17159@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> References: <20180329143952.GA10523@linux1.home> <1522334871.1006.23.camel@gentoo.org> <20180329155710.GA15777@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> <20180329163446.GA17159@whubbs1.gaikai.biz> Organization: Gentoo Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.24.6 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: b6212578-fa69-4f7d-84e9-9e670536c152 X-Archives-Hash: c9d25a6d8dba193d8eba99c0cbedd8b5 W dniu czw, 29.03.2018 o godzinie 11∶34 -0500, użytkownik William Hubbs napisał: > On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 12:24:38PM -0400, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > > On 03/29/2018 11:57 AM, William Hubbs wrote: > > > > > > > > The PMS says that empty directories are undefined, so the portage > > > > behavior of installing them and leaving them alone leads to > > > > incompatibilities. Ebuilds rely on the portage behavior, and if another > > > > PM (within its rights) deletes them, then the package breaks with the > > > > non-portage PM. > > > > > > Maybe so, but you just made the argument for doing nothing different in > > > current eapis and proposing stripping empty directories in eapi 7. > > > However, this should be stripping empty directories combined with > > > failing the emerge. > > > > If we strip them only in EAPI=7, then that still leaves all of these > > packages broken with respect to the PMS in the other EAPIs. > > > > Stripping the empty directories isn't my favorite approach, but leaving > > things broken looks bad on paper too. > > If we are going to strip the empty directories, we should hard fail the > emerge at the same time. Otherwise there is no way to know whether the > package we successfully install will now run. > The developer is supposed to *look* at what the package installs. If people just commit ebuilds based on 'Portage did not explode', then maybe they shouldn't have commit access in the first place. -- Best regards, Michał Górny