Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] install-qa-check.d: issue warnings for 32bit ELFs not using LFS
On 11 Jun 2015 00:21, Brian Dolbec wrote: On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:36:05 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote: so if we're happy with this implementation, i'll start a thread on gentoo-dev so people aren't caught by surprise, and we can merge this for the next release. -mike So, what's the status of this one? I don't recall many responses to the -dev thread. i'll be pushing it at some point. guess i could do it now since it doesn't depend on anything else. -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v2] install-qa-check.d: issue warnings for 32bit ELFs not using LFS
On Sat, 30 May 2015 10:36:05 -0400 Mike Frysinger vap...@gentoo.org wrote: so if we're happy with this implementation, i'll start a thread on gentoo-dev so people aren't caught by surprise, and we can merge this for the next release. -mike So, what's the status of this one? I don't recall many responses to the -dev thread. -- Brian Dolbec dolsen
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH v4] xattr: centralize the various shims in one place
On Wed, 10 Jun 2015 22:43:38 -0700 Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: On 06/10/2015 10:39 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: On 10 Jun 2015 11:54, Zac Medico wrote: On 05/30/2015 01:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: LGTM, except this one line is indented with spaces instead of tabs in vartree.py: def tar_contents(contents, root, tar, protect=None, onProgress=None, - xattr=False): + xattrs=False): i don't know if we have a standard here. sometimes it's a single tab, sometimes it's spaces to line up. i prefer the latter as that's generally what PEP8 does. -mike Ah, ok. The test pass, so guess it's fine that way. But I still don't like it being mixed. It may not be a problem due to it being contained inside the def statement. But I've had some strange results when code is run with mixed spaces/tabs indents. Portage code is not nearly pep8 and we have not set pep8 as a standard for us to adhere to. Although, I personally try to keep my stuff close to pep8. Aside from the fact I prefer a few things different than that standard. In this case, it is minor, but 1 tab indent (which is normal) also does not show the continuation of the def readily. I have at times just given it an additional indent tab to differentiate it from the following code. I personally don't adhere to the line up all params with the foo(param1, param2) It's fine when it is close to the left side, but when the start ( is near the right side, it can be down right impossible to stay within the 80 col. limit for long parameters. Besides the often times wasted space of having all params on separate lines. IMHO it can take away from readability at times while increasing readability for complex function calls. I've come across code in portage with both a mix of tabs and spaces on the same line(s)... In such cases, I have my editor convert all leading spaces to tabs. I don't look for odd cases like the above. But I will usually take note of them in the commit diff while making the commit. Personally, I'd prefer you stay with tabs, even if it does not line up exactly with the ( ignoring personal preferences for tab settings ( 1 tab = 4 spaces,...) Yes, I very much like the code being centralized in one place. :) We can look at any more convention changes after the next lead election. -- Brian Dolbec dolsen
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] runtests: rewrite in python
On Mon, 01 Jun 2015 23:16:47 +0200 Alexander Berntsen berna...@gentoo.org wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 30/05/15 20:27, Mike Frysinger wrote: to be clear: this is not new code. this is (more or less) a straight port from bash to python. your feedback here applies to the bash version as well. i'd like to minimize the changes when converting languages and then address feedback like this on top of that. I agree with Mike's approach here. - -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander That's fine, commit the simple port, make other changes in later commits. -- Brian Dolbec dolsen
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] movefile: enable absolute_import for Python 2 (bug 550886)
On Sun, 31 May 2015 13:53:50 -0700 Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org wrote: Since commit 1032cbf4c218741df1c57767fead2d00cc6321d9, with Python 2, movefile imports portage.util.xattr instead of xattr. Fix it by enabling absolute_import. Fixes: 1032cbf4c218 (quickpkg: support FEATURES=xattr (bug 550006)) X-Gentoo-Bug: 550886 X-Gentoo-Bug-url: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=550886 --- pym/portage/util/movefile.py | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/pym/portage/util/movefile.py b/pym/portage/util/movefile.py index d00f624..1000569 100644 --- a/pym/portage/util/movefile.py +++ b/pym/portage/util/movefile.py @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ # Copyright 2010-2013 Gentoo Foundation # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 -from __future__ import unicode_literals +from __future__ import absolute_import, unicode_literals __all__ = ['movefile'] confirmation of approval... already pushed ;) -- Brian Dolbec dolsen
