On 11/03/2018 03:44 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 11/03/2018 01:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 19:35 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 11/02/2018 12:35 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 12:22 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>>>>> On 11/02/2018 12:16 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 2018-11-02 at 11:49 -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/01/2018 02:50 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>>>>>>> diff --git a/lib/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py
>>>>>>>> b/lib/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py
>>>>>>>> index 9706de422..d7b535698 100644
>>>>>>>> --- a/lib/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py
>>>>>>>> +++ b/lib/portage/package/ebuild/doebuild.py
>>>>>>>> @@ -674,7 +674,7 @@ def doebuild(myebuild, mydo,
>>>>>>>> _unused=DeprecationWarning, settings=None, debug=0,
>>>>>>>> "config", "info", "setup", "depend", "pretend",
>>>>>>>> "fetch", "fetchall", "digest",
>>>>>>>> "unpack", "prepare", "configure", "compile",
>>>>>>>> "test",
>>>>>>>> - "install", "rpm", "qmerge", "merge",
>>>>>>>> + "install", "instprep", "rpm", "qmerge", "merge",
>>>>>>>> "package", "unmerge", "manifest", "nofetch"]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> if mydo not in validcommands:
>>>>>>>> @@ -1402,6 +1402,7 @@ def _spawn_actionmap(settings):
>>>>>>>> "compile": {"cmd":ebuild_sh, "args":{"droppriv":droppriv,
>>>>>>>> "free":nosandbox, "sesandbox":sesandbox, "fakeroot":0}},
>>>>>>>> "test": {"cmd":ebuild_sh, "args":{"droppriv":droppriv,
>>>>>>>> "free":nosandbox, "sesandbox":sesandbox, "fakeroot":0}},
>>>>>>>> "install": {"cmd":ebuild_sh, "args":{"droppriv":0, "free":0,
>>>>>>>> "sesandbox":sesandbox, "fakeroot":fakeroot}},
>>>>>>>> +"instprep": {"cmd":misc_sh, "args":{"droppriv":0, "free":0,
>>>>>>>> "sesandbox":sesandbox, "fakeroot":fakeroot}},
>>>>>>>> "rpm": {"cmd":misc_sh, "args":{"droppriv":0, "free":0,
>>>>>>>> "sesandbox":0, "fakeroot":fakeroot}},
>>>>>>>> "package": {"cmd":misc_sh, "args":{"droppriv":0, "free":0,
>>>>>>>> "sesandbox":0, "fakeroot":fakeroot}},
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The feature seems find but the instprep phase is not needed if we use
>>>>>>> MiscFunctionsProcess instead of EbuildPhase. Here's a list of odd things
>>>>>>> about the instprep ebuild phase implementation as it is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) You can call instprep explicitly via the ebuild(1) command, but I
>>>>>>> doubt that we really want or need to allow that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was actually wondering about that. I suppose it might be useful for
>>>>>> debugging purposes.
>>
>> Ok, I've rechecked it and ebuild(1) currently rejects it as not a valid
>> phase name.
>
> I have your patches applied, and for me it treats 'instprep' as a valid
> phase which I'm able to call. It also lists it in the list of available
> phases if I choose an invalid phase named 'foo', since 'instprep' is
> listed in validcommands:
>
> !!! doebuild: 'foo' is not one of the following valid commands:
> !!! clean cleanrm compile config configure depend
> !!! digest fetch fetchall help info install
> !!! instprep manifest merge nofetch package postinst
> !!! postrm preinst prepare prerm pretend qmerge
> !!! rpm setup test unmerge unpack
>
>> So we can either ignore the problem until somebody finds it
>> useful to call it directly, or work on it. Would the existing patch be
>> ok, provided that ebuild(1) doesn't allow calling prepinst manually?
>
> Lets clarify our intention here, since apparently it works for me but
> not for you when you tested. I think it's fine as-is, but let's make
> sure that the behavior is what we collectively intend.If we allow the 'instprep' phase to be directly invoked, then we should also document it in man/ebuild.1. -- Thanks, Zac
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
