Re: [gentoo-pms] Small cleanup of ebuild-functions.tex

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2420 bytes --]

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 18:21:48 +0200
Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > First change: the test phase is only run when enabled. Since PMS
> > > doesn't document FEATURES yet we can only say "if tests are
> > > enabled" instead of being more precise. Well, defining FEATURES
> > > shouldn't be too hard, but that's for another day.
> > 
> > Please cross-reference that to the part where we explain that
> > src_test is run at user option.
> I fail to find such a thing in current PMS.

Grep for 'src-test-required', and bear in mind what I said about "so
that the user option part is explained even if kdebuild is disabled".
That language really should be in even if kdebuild is turned off,
especially if we're explicitly stating that src_test is optional.

> > You might also want to tidy up the language on
> > that so that the user option part is explained even if kdebuild is
> > disabled.
> I suggest we do as you suggested yesterday and remove kdebuild 
> unconditionally. That saves hacking around something that cannot be
> in the final version anyway.

I suggest you stop trying to push a political agenda when doing so just
makes life harder for the people who have to use PMS.

> > Actually, this one's a bit of a mess, thanks to Portage making a
> > non-EAPI-controlled order change that was supposed to go in in EAPI
> > 2 but didn't.
> Yeah, messy thing. But as you are well aware there was no sane way to
> make that change EAPI-dependant without causing ambiguous situation
> and much more confusion.

Actually, there was a perfectly clean way of doing it, and Zac even
agreed to do it that way before he went and implemented it
unconditionally. The change was supposed to be going through as part of
EAPI 2.

> > If you're updating it, please do so to accurately reflect
> > both orders that can be and are used.
> Any version of portage in use uses the "later" version.

That's not how the system works. We're supposed to be documenting what
ebuilds may rely upon from compliant package managers. Since there are
compliant package managers that use both behaviours, the
documentation's supposed to reflect that.

> Feel free to document historic behaviour if you want, but as PMS
> hasn't documented it before I'd put it in the errata section.

Doesn't PMS currently document the old way of doing it, not the new way?

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

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