From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KpDaw-00052q-1t for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:55:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 41EDAE006F; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:55:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4847E006F for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:55:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9585E647E2 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:55:38 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.715 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.715 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.817, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xKOc4kqHB1ce for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEF45646FF for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:55:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KpDac-00083z-Kl for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:55:22 +0000 Received: from 91.84.89.218 ([91.84.89.218]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:55:22 +0000 Received: from slong by 91.84.89.218 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 13 Oct 2008 02:55:22 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Steve Long Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: bzr.eclass into Portage Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 03:43:48 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20080317193133.525ba4ab@gentoo.org> <47DF0EB6.8010300@gentoo.org> <47E0994D.20705@gentoo.org> <20080320083853.65c20275@gentoo.org> <47E32FDE.60805@gentoo.org> <20080321124913.00d96832@gentoo.org> <18664.63712.432021.661712@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> <48E962B7.2000403@gentoo.org> <18665.44245.631670.638507@a1ihome1.kph.uni-mainz.de> 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: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 91.84.89.218 User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9 Sender: news X-Archives-Salt: c4271f5c-e492-4a9b-b7d0-d03ee5055f51 X-Archives-Hash: 1510741c9632fdaa669857e35dac17b7 Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008, Jorge Manuel B S Vicetto wrote: > >> No objections here, just a question. Do you know if the issue with the >> lp:// sources has been fixed in bzr? > No objections, a minor point wrt bash: EBZR_OPTIONS="${EBZR_OPTIONS:-}" (and similar variants) doesn't do anything (beyond waste lex and yacc time.) I can understand the maintenance argument, but I don't think it really flies, given the inordinate lengths considered in the past to avoid sourcing an ebuild. The same consideration applies to all those "constant values" 'and indeed' ${foo} as opposed to $foo, though first time I raised that I got sworn at, so not expecting miracles here. [[ -z ${EBZR_REPO_URI} ]] && die .. Here's how I'd write that: [[ $EBZR_REPO_URI ]] || die .. I've heard the "be explicit" argument before (hey antarus;) and here's why I disagree: If you don't know test (''help test'') and what its default is, then you really don't know the basics of shellscript (you possibly only think you do.) If you don't know shell, and can't begin to understand what that might do, then you shouldn't consider coding as a career, and I'd expect you to take quite a while to go through the #bash crucible; if you ever make it I'd have a lot of time for you. (Since you use || elsewhere, I don't expect to hear the "|| is cryptic even if we say OR in speech" argument.) I appreciate that appears like 3 or 4 points: they all come under the 'clean bash' heading: it runs faster, as well as being easier to read and write. > Looks like this is working fine with bzr-1.5, so I'll change the > dependency. > Given that, is there any reason not to use 1.6 if installed, and fallback to an earlier version if not? Personally I'd just use an unversioned dep in the latter case, given that 1.5 is stable and 1.7.1 is ~arch (amd64). Doesn't sound like it's going to be long to get 1.6. I'm thinking: "maximise utility before you unleash it on the tree".