From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NeJHk-0000X4-Ei for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 08 Feb 2010 02:23:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72E01E1224; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 02:23:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7011CE1160 for ; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 02:23:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vapier.localnet (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29A61B426D; Mon, 8 Feb 2010 02:23:27 +0000 (UTC) From: Mike Frysinger Organization: wh0rd.org To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Calling unknown commands in an ebuild Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 21:24:48 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.4 (Linux/2.6.32.6; KDE/4.3.4; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Zac Medico References: <1265577010.28554.15.camel@blackhole.cddr.org> <4B6F3C7F.700@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <4B6F3C7F.700@gentoo.org> 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-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2206918.qH7Vca4oNg"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002072124.49047.vapier@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: a3a95ed4-8d9b-4c78-a960-f927fecb50d6 X-Archives-Hash: 33071da09bff9df0fa1378c5f7d90e8c --nextPart2206918.qH7Vca4oNg Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sunday 07 February 2010 17:19:43 Zac Medico wrote: > On 02/07/2010 01:10 PM, Stelian Ionescu wrote: > > Wouldn't it be a good idea to use "set -e" in the ebuild environment ? > > I've seen cases of ebuilds calling epatch without inheriting from eutils > > which compiled and installed (apparently) fine but possibly broken > > binaries. Examples of cases where "set -e" would have helped: 303849, > > 297063, 260279, 221257, > > https://bugs.gentoo.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=3Dcommand+not+found > > and perhaps others I haven't managed to find in bugzilla >=20 > I don't know what kind of side-effects set -e would introduce, but > we can easily add a repoman check for epatch calls without eutils > inherit. if we wanted to specifically target semi-common errors (and i think 'epatch= '=20 w/out eutils.eclass falls into this category), then a repoman check would b= e=20 good. it might also be useful to add a default epatch() to the initial env that=20 would be clobbered when the inherit occurred. epatch() { die "you need to inherit eutils.eclass to use epatch" ; } =2Dmike --nextPart2206918.qH7Vca4oNg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAABAgAGBQJLb3XxAAoJEEFjO5/oN/WBse8P/iGjTzXlAt4JdWlT5FZN2Cm9 rwpQqeOhcsLPR+H1JT0Lpio7kYXgv+P6fkQ8DNaanQpJnJS+6uHl2CnIoB/n43p9 fHJ1eI1EKF4YqX592A7A3ZnjV4Jzf/wcvbgcFUGKBKRcpyDhQVPZdgQ9p5F0Dp2/ GuiVVzoORq2RK+n5y4te4ki0Tywu5vJBy9pxZjlMbjAi5UYPx1uyvukE0QGcL5LD EPoj2v69xAlOtFCqri3QeGg2ASZtpKOAGM68RxMVamIB+cRgxjr1ZL0tPllw/7IW 7An4Tw9Cxes49oIKUFcAmuHFsPh5rVBTEHZCCqG8DpzBUQ7sPJBKkyEwLHKlUv6d EZA8KXxIDaFua9BZf25a5K5wXNP/pJMQeTXTUNElle4KFqRSAMIrRKfR7FKE/to2 ETDOPtiWateT+7tuWAcLwO/fx3vAAhgK2QfffSyfxV/brrJESWC7wAqd6fDKvMVq FsUVYa0pYuUnD09j/ScAK9q7WfBuSRpLc54VUWFcdXG7kcvTHC3cSWTSxYzQ/jiG C74wZy0J0ApJy8ObRPr1DpMNSOpThZ0/G0+MgrE/6Oul4blFqRnsw07k2aeXHPt6 0aNZ+ZEhJXhJW1H0o/t05jItrDuYkMwKwh18EfCGSD5KEvtepewZ2z6Fr06JmkQE Z9DdkCqumY/iIhzgUXiQ =eTyQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2206918.qH7Vca4oNg--