[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 10/11/2011 07:49 PM, Fabian Groffen (grobian) wrote:
grobian 11/10/11 16:49:18
Modified: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
Log:
Revert ssuominen's changes that were totally uncalled for and most
importantly broke the installation of this package on the main consumer's
platform: Prefix
(Portage version: 2.2.01.19295-prefix/cvs/SunOS i386)
Revision ChangesPath
1.17 app-admin/chrpath/ChangeLog
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/ChangeLog?rev=1.17view=markup
plain:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/ChangeLog?rev=1.17content-type=text/plain
diff :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/ChangeLog?r1=1.16r2=1.17
Index: ChangeLog
===
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.16
retrieving revision 1.17
diff -u -r1.16 -r1.17
--- ChangeLog 10 Oct 2011 22:28:37 - 1.16
+++ ChangeLog 11 Oct 2011 16:49:17 - 1.17
@@ -1,6 +1,11 @@
# ChangeLog for app-admin/chrpath
# Copyright 1999-2011 Gentoo Foundation; Distributed under the GPL v2
-# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/ChangeLog,v 1.16
2011/10/10 22:28:37 ssuominen Exp $
+# $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/ChangeLog,v 1.17
2011/10/11 16:49:17 grobian Exp $
+
+ 11 Oct 2011; Fabian Groffen grob...@gentoo.org chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild:
+ Revert ssuominen's changes that were totally uncalled for and most
+ importantly broke the installation of this package on the main consumer's
+ platform: Prefix
10 Oct 2011; Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild:
Remove unnecessary static libraries because chrpath is dlopening the
dynamic
1.3 app-admin/chrpath/chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
file :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild?rev=1.3view=markup
plain:
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild?rev=1.3content-type=text/plain
diff :
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild?r1=1.2r2=1.3
Index: chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
===
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild,v
retrieving revision 1.2
retrieving revision 1.3
diff -u -r1.2 -r1.3
--- chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild10 Oct 2011 22:28:37 - 1.2
+++ chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild11 Oct 2011 16:49:17 - 1.3
@@ -1,13 +1,15 @@
# Copyright 1999-2011 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
-# $Header:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild,v 1.2
2011/10/10 22:28:37 ssuominen Exp $
+# $Header:
/var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/app-admin/chrpath/chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild,v 1.3
2011/10/11 16:49:17 grobian Exp $
-EAPI=4
-inherit autotools eutils
+EAPI=2
+
+inherit eutils autotools
DESCRIPTION=chrpath can modify the rpath and runpath of ELF executables
HOMEPAGE=http://directory.fsf.org/project/chrpath/;
-SRC_URI=mirror://gentoo/${P}.tar.gz
+# original upstream no longer exists (ftp://ftp.hungry.com/pub/hungry)
+SRC_URI=http://ftp.tux.org/pub/X-Windows/ftp.hungry.com/chrpath/${P}.tar.gz;
LICENSE=GPL-2
SLOT=0
@@ -15,21 +17,14 @@
IUSE=
src_prepare() {
- epatch \
- ${FILESDIR}/${P}-multilib.patch \
- ${FILESDIR}/${PN}-keepgoing.patch \
- ${FILESDIR}/${P}-testsuite-1.patch
-
+ epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-multilib.patch
+ epatch ${FILESDIR}/${PN}-keepgoing.patch
+ epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-testsuite-1.patch
+ sed -i -e '/^docdir/d' Makefile.am # use standard docdir
eautoreconf
}
src_install() {
- emake \
- DESTDIR=${D} \
- docdir=/usr/share/doc/${PF} \
- install
-
- rm -f \
- ${ED}usr/lib*/lib*.{a,la} \
- ${ED}usr/share/doc/${PF}/{COPYING,INSTALL}
+ emake install DESTDIR=${D} || die
+ dodoc ChangeLog AUTHORS NEWS README
}
You just broke the package again by reverting technically correct commits:
Documentation:
/usr/share/doc/chrpath-0.13-r2/ChangeLog.bz2
/usr/share/doc/chrpath-0.13-r2/AUTHORS.bz2
/usr/share/doc/chrpath-0.13-r2/NEWS.bz2
/usr/share/doc/chrpath-0.13-r2/README.bz2
/usr/share/doc/-chrpath-/
/usr/share/doc/-chrpath-/README
/usr/share/doc/-chrpath-/NEWS
/usr/share/doc/-chrpath-/INSTALL
/usr/share/doc/-chrpath-/ChangeLog
/usr/share/doc/-chrpath-/COPYING
/usr/share/doc/-chrpath-/AUTHORS
Unused libtool files:
/usr/lib64/libchrpath64.la
/usr/lib64/libchrpath32.la
Libs used only by chrpath itself now install static versions of
themself, unused:
/usr/lib64/libchrpath32.a
/usr/lib64/libchrpath64.a
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
and not crapping all over the package?
How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego for example),
and I do allow you to make a lot of changes to my packages. Just don't
force your style and preferences on me.
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
and not crapping all over the package?
How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego for example),
and I do allow you to make a lot of changes to my packages. Just don't
force your style and preferences on me.
So basically you are saying you reverted tehnically correct changes for
cosmetics. What ticked you off, the \ lines changes? I believe that was
the only change that wasn't about fixing something broken.
And so have you, changed dozens of my ebuilds for PREFIX compability or
other random fixes, not everything turned out correct, mistakes were
made and were clearly accidental. I've fixed them instead of wasting
both of our times. Is it too much to ask for same in return?
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 11-10-2011 21:01:40 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
and not crapping all over the package?
How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego for example),
and I do allow you to make a lot of changes to my packages. Just don't
force your style and preferences on me.
So basically you are saying you reverted tehnically correct changes for
cosmetics. What ticked you off, the \ lines changes? I believe that was
the only change that wasn't about fixing something broken.
No, you broke the package for Prefix. Next you bumped it to EAPI=4,
then you removed SRC_URI for no particular reason, dropped libtool files
and dropped static archives. Next to this you did some reordering and
other cosmetic changes.
And so have you, changed dozens of my ebuilds for PREFIX compability or
other random fixes, not everything turned out correct, mistakes were
made and were clearly accidental. I've fixed them instead of wasting
both of our times. Is it too much to ask for same in return?
I already told you that you can change quite a lot to my ebuilds,
without me complaining. Do you mind me reverting your stuff and redoing
it now?
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 10/11/2011 09:13 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 21:01:40 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 10/11/2011 08:05 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 11-10-2011 19:59:13 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote:
So I've missed one ${EPREFIX} for docdir= ? How about just fixing that,
and not crapping all over the package?
How about first asking the maintainer before you completely rewrite an
ebuild? I'm not innocent on this topic either (ask Diego for example),
and I do allow you to make a lot of changes to my packages. Just don't
force your style and preferences on me.
So basically you are saying you reverted tehnically correct changes for
cosmetics. What ticked you off, the \ lines changes? I believe that was
the only change that wasn't about fixing something broken.
No, you broke the package for Prefix. Next you bumped it to EAPI=4,
then you removed SRC_URI for no particular reason, dropped libtool files
and dropped static archives. Next to this you did some reordering and
other cosmetic changes.
And so have you, changed dozens of my ebuilds for PREFIX compability or
other random fixes, not everything turned out correct, mistakes were
made and were clearly accidental. I've fixed them instead of wasting
both of our times. Is it too much to ask for same in return?
I already told you that you can change quite a lot to my ebuilds,
without me complaining. Do you mind me reverting your stuff and redoing
it now?
Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen
the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial.
I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find
when rm is more than enough, ...
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 11-10-2011 21:34:22 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial. Shall we stick to the policy and wait 30 days without bugs first? I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find when rm is more than enough, ... I just like the documented way of doing things [1], so I hope many people will just stick to that for maintainability, in favour of pseudo efficiency. [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_prepare/epatch/index.html -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote: I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find when rm is more than enough, ... I haven't looked, but if we don't already, a little style guide would be very cool. I wouldn't think of most of these things without seeing it somewhere else first. It looks like the epatch devmanual page uses multiple calls. :\ Matt
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 10/11/2011 09:46 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 11-10-2011 21:34:22 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: Thanks, the end result of installed files look now OK. Care to reopen the stabilization bug? The changes are trivial. Shall we stick to the policy and wait 30 days without bugs first? OK, no hurry. I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of find when rm is more than enough, ... I just like the documented way of doing things [1], so I hope many people will just stick to that for maintainability, in favour of pseudo efficiency. [1] http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_prepare/epatch/index.html This document should be fixed. Any comments about the patches belong to header of those patches, available for possible upstreams as well. Doesn't belong to ebuilds. So it very rarely makes sense to call epatch multiple times, and certainly doesn't improve maintainability. - Samuli
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 14:50:30 -0400
Matt Turner matts...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Samuli Suominen
ssuomi...@gentoo.org wrote:
I just hope nobody will take an example of the ebuild with code
duplication (multiple epatch calls), overquoting, redudant use of
find when rm is more than enough, ...
I haven't looked, but if we don't already, a little style guide would
be very cool. I wouldn't think of most of these things without seeing
it somewhere else first.
It looks like the epatch devmanual page uses multiple calls. :\
I don't think that passing multiple files to epatch actually improves
readability. Simple example:
# bug #123456, foo, bar
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-foo.patch
# bug #234567, baz bazinga blah blah
epatch ${FILESDIR}/${P}-baz.patch
With multiple arguments, you can't put comments in the middle.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 11-10-2011 22:38:10 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: This document should be fixed. Any comments about the patches belong to header of those patches, available for possible upstreams as well. Doesn't belong to ebuilds. The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it? So it very rarely makes sense to call epatch multiple times, and certainly doesn't improve maintainability. Conclusion doesn't follow from argumentation. -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 10/11/2011 10:49 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 11-10-2011 22:38:10 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: This document should be fixed. Any comments about the patches belong to header of those patches, available for possible upstreams as well. Doesn't belong to ebuilds. The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it? No, but it should. See below. So it very rarely makes sense to call epatch multiple times, and certainly doesn't improve maintainability. Conclusion doesn't follow from argumentation. http://dev.gentoo.org/~vapier/clean-patches Look for here's a check list of things to keep in the patch header:
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 11-10-2011 23:00:19 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it? No, but it should. different topic -- Fabian Groffen Gentoo on a different level signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in app-admin/chrpath: ChangeLog chrpath-0.13-r2.ebuild
On 10/11/2011 11:04 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: On 11-10-2011 23:00:19 +0300, Samuli Suominen wrote: The devmanual doesn't suggest this is the way to go, does it? No, but it should. different topic still on the same one.
