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 A5C371396D9 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 12:53:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4CEECE104C; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 12:53:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (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 F1DB1E100C for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 12:53:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (c-98-218-46-55.hsd1.md.comcast.net [98.218.46.55]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mjo) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C32EA33BEB4 for ; Sun, 12 Nov 2017 12:53:25 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Help testing ebuilds? golang/Fabio load balancer To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <05c08f65-3cf6-67f4-621e-cf210fe2a82c@gentoo.org> <1510387105.1210.2.camel@gentoo.org> <1510428406.2446.2.camel@gentoo.org> From: Michael Orlitzky Message-ID: <1eed4490-6e21-42bf-6546-e73013d30b35@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2017 07:53:20 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 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 In-Reply-To: <1510428406.2446.2.camel@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: 73c81bb5-5293-484d-8aa7-6ceb2f1b2464 X-Archives-Hash: 533dc37648d7163d76161b673aff16b8 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. 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. * 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.