[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Peter Volkov]

В Чтв, 30/06/2011 в 19:27 +0000, Sebastian Pipping (sping) пишет: 
> Log:
>   net-misc/aria2: Bump to 1.12.0, looks trivial
>  
> EAPI="2"
> 
> inherit bash-completion
...
> pkg_setup() {
> 	if use scripts && use !xmlrpc && use !metalink; then
> 		ewarn "Please also enable the 'xmlrpc' USE flag to actually use the additional scripts"
> 	fi
> }

This really calls for REQUIRED_USE from EAPI="4".

REQUIRED_USE="scripts? ( ^^ ( xmlrpc metalink ) )"

> src_install() {
> 	emake DESTDIR="${D}" install || die "emake install failed"
> 
> 	rm -rf "${D}/usr/share/doc/aria2"

|| die

--
Peter. 

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 353 bytes --]

On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:03:41 +0400
Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > pkg_setup() {
> > 	if use scripts && use !xmlrpc && use !metalink; then
> 
> This really calls for REQUIRED_USE from EAPI="4".
> 
> REQUIRED_USE="scripts? ( ^^ ( xmlrpc metalink ) )"

That's not the same condition as the one in the pkg_setup.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Peter Volkov]

В Птн, 01/07/2011 в 09:09 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh пишет:
> On Fri, 01 Jul 2011 12:03:41 +0400
> Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > pkg_setup() {
> > > 	if use scripts && use !xmlrpc && use !metalink; then
> > 
> > This really calls for REQUIRED_USE from EAPI="4".
> > 
> > REQUIRED_USE="scripts? ( ^^ ( xmlrpc metalink ) )"
> 
> That's not the same condition as the one in the pkg_setup.

Ah, yea. I guess any of xmlrpc or metalink are required for scripts. So,
correct one should be:

REQUIRED_USE="scripts? ( || ( xmlrpc metalink ) )"

--
Peter.

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 07/01/2011 10:03 AM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Чтв, 30/06/2011 в 19:27 +0000, Sebastian Pipping (sping) пишет: 
>> Log:
>>   net-misc/aria2: Bump to 1.12.0, looks trivial
>>  
>> EAPI="2"
>>
>> inherit bash-completion
> ...
>> pkg_setup() {
>> 	if use scripts && use !xmlrpc && use !metalink; then
>> 		ewarn "Please also enable the 'xmlrpc' USE flag to actually use the additional scripts"
>> 	fi
>> }
> 
> This really calls for REQUIRED_USE from EAPI="4".
> 
> REQUIRED_USE="scripts? ( ^^ ( xmlrpc metalink ) )"

If we use EAPI 4 in that ebuild we cannot make it stable anytime soon,
correct?



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Patrick Lauer]

On 07/01/11 21:25, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
[SNIP]
> If we use EAPI 4 in that ebuild we cannot make it stable anytime soon,
> correct?

As far as I'm aware we have a stable portage with EAPI 4 in the tree for
a few weeks now, so you can actively use it everywhere.


-- 
Patrick Lauer         http://service.gentooexperimental.org

Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist
Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 01-07-2011 19:33, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On 07/01/11 21:25, Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> If we use EAPI 4 in that ebuild we cannot make it stable anytime soon,
>> correct?
> 
> As far as I'm aware we have a stable portage with EAPI 4 in the tree for
> a few weeks now, so you can actively use it everywhere.

This prompted me to search the council meeting logs about EAPI 4 use for
stable packages. Contrary to my recollection, this topic fell off the
council radar a few months ago.
In any case, as decided in the February[1] meeting, EAPI 4 was approved
for tree use. The first portage version with EAPI-4 support[2] was
marked stable over 3 months ago[3].
I did a quick grep in the tree and count over 500 ebuilds with EAPI 4
and amd64 or x86 keywords, so we already have quite a few EAPI=4 stable
packages in the tree.

 [1] -
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/council/meeting-logs/20110201-summary.txt
 [2] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/358009
 [3] -
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/portage/portage-2.1.9.42.ebuild?view=log

- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=TiQL
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Jonathan Callen]

Peter Volkov wrote:
>> 
>> rm -rf "${D}/usr/share/doc/aria2"
> 
> || die

`rm -f` never fails -- if the target does not exist, then rm simply returns 
true. (The only reason it would fail that I can think of is /bin/rm not 
existing, in which case you have a bigger problem.)

To test, try `rm -f /nonexistant/file; echo $?`

-- 
Jonathan Callen

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Paul Arthur]

On 2011-07-03, Jonathan Callen <abcd@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Peter Volkov wrote:
>>> 
>>> rm -rf "${D}/usr/share/doc/aria2"
>> 
>> || die
>
> `rm -f` never fails -- if the target does not exist, then rm simply returns 
> true. (The only reason it would fail that I can think of is /bin/rm not 
> existing, in which case you have a bigger problem.)
>
> To test, try `rm -f /nonexistant/file; echo $?`

jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -f testfile
rm: cannot remove `testfile': Operation not permitted
jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
1
jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -rf testdir
rm: cannot remove `testdir/test': Permission denied
jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
1


-- 
Suddenly, the door crashed open. Outside, purple prose rained down
like a bad metaphor.
    --SteveD on RPGnet

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Francesco R]

2011/7/3 Paul Arthur <junk+usenet@flowerysong.com>:
> On 2011-07-03, Jonathan Callen <abcd@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Peter Volkov wrote:
>>>>
>>>> rm -rf "${D}/usr/share/doc/aria2"
>>>
>>> || die
>>
>> `rm -f` never fails -- if the target does not exist, then rm simply returns
>> true. (The only reason it would fail that I can think of is /bin/rm not
>> existing, in which case you have a bigger problem.)
>>
>> To test, try `rm -f /nonexistant/file; echo $?`
>
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -f testfile
> rm: cannot remove `testfile': Operation not permitted
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
> 1

rm -f "chuck norris"
rm: cannot remove `Chuck Norris': Operation not contemplated
echo $?
42


> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -rf testdir
> rm: cannot remove `testdir/test': Permission denied
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
> 1
>
>
> --
> Suddenly, the door crashed open. Outside, purple prose rained down
> like a bad metaphor.
>    --SteveD on RPGnet
>
>
>

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1064 bytes --]

On Sunday, July 03, 2011 18:49:52 Paul Arthur wrote:
> On 2011-07-03, Jonathan Callen <abcd@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Peter Volkov wrote:
> >>> rm -rf "${D}/usr/share/doc/aria2"
> >>> 
> >> || die
> > 
> > `rm -f` never fails -- if the target does not exist, then rm simply
> > returns true. (The only reason it would fail that I can think of is
> > /bin/rm not existing, in which case you have a bigger problem.)
> > 
> > To test, try `rm -f /nonexistant/file; echo $?`
> 
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -f testfile
> rm: cannot remove `testfile': Operation not permitted
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
> 1
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ rm -rf testdir
> rm: cannot remove `testdir/test': Permission denied
> jill-zeke /var/tmp $ echo $?
> 1

if this occurs *inside the ebuild env*, then most likely something else is 
screwed up and will be caught anyways

personally, i generally like to use:
	rm -r "${D}"/usr/share/doc/aria2 || die
that way when the package stops installing aria2, i notice and can remove the 
call to `rm` altogether ...
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 180 bytes --]

On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 19:05:23 Francesco R wrote:
> rm -f "chuck norris"
> rm: cannot remove `Chuck Norris': Operation not contemplated

"chuck norris" != "Chuck Norris"
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in net-misc/aria2: aria2-1.12.0.ebuild ChangeLog

[Todd Goodman]

* Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> [110705 19:01]:
> On Tuesday, July 05, 2011 19:05:23 Francesco R wrote:
> > rm -f "chuck norris"
> > rm: cannot remove `Chuck Norris': Operation not contemplated
> 
> "chuck norris" != "Chuck Norris"
> -mike

If he had said "Chuck Norris" instead of "chuck norris" he wouldn'
t have just gotten a message, he'd have gotten his a$$ kicked...

Todd