On 07/18/2013 12:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2013-07-17, o godz. 17:42:32 > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <[email protected]> napisał(a): > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 > >> On 07/17/2013 05:34 PM, hasufell wrote: >>> On 07/17/2013 11:28 PM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina wrote: >>>> ...and that is why it isn't permitted to directly use an eclass >>>> that you don't inherit. While I agree testing could (should) have >>>> been better, the fact that people ignore the rules for writing >>>> ebuilds shouldn't entirely fall on the KDE team. >>> >>> >>> It doesn't matter in the slightest whos fault it is or who should be >>> blamed. >>> >>> It is about maintaining stability for the user. Especially when it >>> comes to stable ebuilds. >>> >>> That means the methods for eclass changes must be more thoroughly. > >> I completely agree with you, the changes should have been tested better. >> The ebuilds with these errors popping up ALSO should have been tested >> better. Considering this is a QA violation, perhaps it is possible to >> add a check in repoman for using something from an eclass which you >> didn't inherit. I doubt the slowdown would be horrible and clearly it >> would catch a huge number of QA violations. > > Repoman has such check already. It pops up for specific functions > listed in repoman source code. This allows us to catch the common > mistakes while avoiding false positives. > > Maybe it should always pop up for phase functions. I don't immediately > see a reason why an ebuild would use a phase function of an eclass it > doesn't inherit directly.
That check is only enabled in portage-2.2, because I really want it to parse the relevant info directly from the eclasses. That way, we won't have to update repoman for eclass changes. -- Thanks, Zac
