[gentoo-devhelp] dodoc vs directories

[gentoo-devhelp] dodoc vs directories

[James Cloos]

It seems that dodoc recently has lost recusivity in portage master.

Several ebuilds (including in the main tree) now fail because of that.

Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356389 implies that the goal
is only to qawarn, not error, when passed a directory.  And dodoc itself
seems to work that way.

But doins does not (cf:

  :; grep -C3 '$x is a directory' /usr/lib/portage/bin/ebuild-helpers/doins

for the details).

Is this a bug in portage or should I submit bugs, blocking 356389, for
each failure?

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-devhelp] dodoc vs directories

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1397 bytes --]

James Cloos schrieb:
> It seems that dodoc recently has lost recusivity in portage master.

Unless you found something special with EAPI-4, then there is nothing
lost. dodoc never had the ability to work on directories in EAPI<4.
There was just a bug in portage, which did not let dodoc die, when it
was called on a directory. This now should, according to the mentioned
bug 356389, show a QA warning and at some later point die as it should
have done from the beginning.

> 
> Several ebuilds (including in the main tree) now fail because of that.

Please give me some common example for such a failure.

> 
> Bug https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=356389 implies that the goal
> is only to qawarn, not error, when passed a directory.  And dodoc itself
> seems to work that way.

So if dodoc does just qawarn, how should ebuilds now fail with dodoc
called on directories?

> 
> But doins does not (cf:
> 
>   :; grep -C3 '$x is a directory' /usr/lib/portage/bin/ebuild-helpers/doins
> 
> for the details).

doins was never ment to work on directories, unless you used the -r switch.

> 
> Is this a bug in portage or should I submit bugs, blocking 356389, for
> each failure?

I currently cannot really see your problem, maybe you mixed some facts
about dodoc and doins? Otherwise, please clarify this.

-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-devhelp] dodoc vs directories

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "TS" == Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> writes:

TS> Please give me some common example for such a failure.

libgit2 is the one which sent me on the search, but there were several
which failed in install due to dodoc calls.

TS> So if dodoc does just qawarn, how should ebuilds now fail with dodoc
TS> called on directories?

The log does not have dodoc's qawarn, but rather doins's error message.
The ebuild, OTOH, just calls 'dodoc doc/*'.

Also, removing the 'failed|=$?' from doins allows dodoc to succeed.

Therfore, dodoc calls doins.

TS> I currently cannot really see your problem, maybe you mixed some facts
TS> about dodoc and doins? Otherwise, please clarify this.

Nope.  See above.

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-devhelp] dodoc vs directories

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 583 bytes --]

James Cloos schrieb:
>>>>>> "TS" == Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> TS> Please give me some common example for such a failure.
> 
> libgit2 is the one which sent me on the search, but there were several
> which failed in install due to dodoc calls.

I just tried libgit2 (dev-libs/libgit2-0.16.0) and it installs just fine
for me, so i cannot reproduce this (base version for my portage is
2.2_alpha87), what are your versions of portage and libgit2?

P.S.: No need to cc me, i am subscribed to this list.

-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-devhelp] dodoc vs directories

[James Cloos]

>>>>> "TS" == Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> writes:

TS> I just tried libgit2 (dev-libs/libgit2-0.16.0) and it installs just fine
TS> for me, so i cannot reproduce this (base version for my portage is
TS> 2.2_alpha87), what are your versions of portage and libgit2?

As I implied by saying master, -9999.  libgit2 is also 0.16.0.

I tried updating portage just before posting, the log says that was from
9997bb9c81e07 to 4a85888920244.

My last successful install of libgit2 was 0.15.0 back in October, so the
change which made portage start failing ebuilds which try to dodoc dirs
was done sometime in the last four months.

TS> P.S.: No need to cc me, i am subscribed to this list.

I'm used to lkml-style etiquette; include everyone who has posted in the
CC.  It tends to be the norm on technical lists, and is what gnus does
by default if I reply to the copy sent directly.  I (now) see that this
lists munges reply-to, so this reply honours that....

-JimC
-- 
James Cloos <cloos@jhcloos.com>         OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6

Re: [gentoo-devhelp] dodoc vs directories

[Thomas Sachau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1277 bytes --]

James Cloos schrieb:
>>>>>> "TS" == Thomas Sachau <tommy@gentoo.org> writes:
> 
> TS> I just tried libgit2 (dev-libs/libgit2-0.16.0) and it installs just fine
> TS> for me, so i cannot reproduce this (base version for my portage is
> TS> 2.2_alpha87), what are your versions of portage and libgit2?
> 
> As I implied by saying master, -9999.  libgit2 is also 0.16.0.
> 
> I tried updating portage just before posting, the log says that was from
> 9997bb9c81e07 to 4a85888920244.
> 
> My last successful install of libgit2 was 0.15.0 back in October, so the
> change which made portage start failing ebuilds which try to dodoc dirs
> was done sometime in the last four months.
> 
> TS> P.S.: No need to cc me, i am subscribed to this list.
> 
> I'm used to lkml-style etiquette; include everyone who has posted in the
> CC.  It tends to be the norm on technical lists, and is what gnus does
> by default if I reply to the copy sent directly.  I (now) see that this
> lists munges reply-to, so this reply honours that....
> 
> -JimC

Not much i can help with, since i cannot reproduce this myself.
Maybe you ask portage maintainers on irc in #gentoo-portage or on the
related mailing list about this.

-- 

Thomas Sachau
Gentoo Linux Developer


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 380 bytes --]