Jakub Moc wrote: > >>>Currently there are quite a few ebuilds in the tree that execute dodoc or >>>dohtml for files that do not exist. I think it would be nice to have >>>ebuilds die if this is the case. To not break current ebuilds this would >>>only happen with FEATURES="stricter". > > > Sigh... There are already bugs flowing in for TEXTRELs/executable stacks > checks implemented in recent portage versions. Some of these bugs are > completely INVALID or CANTFIX - emulation stuff, binary-only ebuilds, etc. > etc. What's the point of this breakage? Why are these QA checks fatal, > causing ebuilds to bail out? How can you disable such checks per-ebuild > (AFAIK - you can't) to not annoy users with QA notices and breakage one can > do nothing about anyway? > > As Flameeyes pointed out, dodoc/dohtml is also used in eclasses. This can > break many ebuilds. Users will report duplicate bugs because they will not > realize that it's the eclass causing the failure, not the ebuild. Again, > what's the point? How will it work with FEATURES="nodoc"? Why should an > ebuild ever fail just because some doc file is missing or got renamed or > whatever? > >
echo "dodoc: ${x} does not exist" 1>&2
This should not be showed to users then because we know this to happen
and do not want to do anything about it. Also try to remember that not
every package is done following the GNU conventions (Java). It can
happen that the doc files are for example renamed and dieing will help
catch this. dodoc/dohtml dieing will not have any affect on
FEATURES="nodoc".
How about making it possible to tell dodoc/dohtml not to die as an
argument/variable/whatever? We could also have new diedodoc functions,
but it would be nice to keep this as simple as possible.
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
