On 10/20/2012 4:05 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2012 03:52:49 -0700
"Gregory M. Turner" <[email protected]> wrote:
Took me a while, but I think I see why this is correct, now (mostly
-- see below). The source of my confusion was a mistaken assumption
that die() would not respect PORTAGE_NONFATAL.
The source of your confusion is more the impression that there is such
a thing as PORTAGE_NONFATAL. You should be reading the spec, not code.
Seriously? OK, let's try:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/4/pms.html#x1-13000012.3.3.1
and
http://dev.gentoo.org/~ulm/pms/4/pms.html#x1-13500012.3.3.6
do not comport with the actual behavior of portage.
Specifically, they very strongly suggest that nonfatal does not
influence the behavior of die(). So depending on one's reading of the
situation, either the PMS is misspecified or portage is broken. Meanwhile,
http://dev.gentoo.org/~zmedico/portage/doc/ch05s03s05.html#package-ebuild-eapi-4-helpers-die-nonfatal
is dusting so much under the carpet that I can't possibly do my job as
an eclass author without reverse-engineering, dry-run code analysis, or
asking the SME's here on the mailing list how this is supposed to work
in practice.
I've already asked the mailing list and so far the closest thing I have
to an answer is Zac's response. Although I appreciate his help, I've
explained why his response doesn't fully address my concerns. If you
don't trust my dry-run analysis then we can try the reverse-engineering
approach. Give this ebuild a try:
---->8----
# Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
# $Header: $
EAPI=4
DESCRIPTION="Foo"
SLOT="0"
KEYWORDS="~x86 ~amd64 ~x86-linux ~amd64-linux"
IUSE=""
DEPEND=""
RDEPEND="${DEPEND}"
utility_fn() { die "uhoh"; }
src_unpack() { mkdir -p "${S}"; }
src_prepare() { nonfatal utility_fn; }
src_compile() { echo "yaaay" > foo.txt; }
src_install() { dodoc foo.txt; }
----8<----
As you can see, my dry-run analysis appears to have been correct.
There is no documentation concerning best practices for eclass authors
post-EAPI4, so I can't just RTFM -- there is no FM. Furthermore, it
appears that EAPI4 has broken a great many eclasses when invoked with
the new nonfatal operator. I guess I can just file a bug for that since
so far nobody seems too concerned by it, but that still doesn't help me
to write my eclass.
-gmt
