Vapier wrote: [Thu Jul 13 2006, 11:32:39PM EDT]
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 13:37, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
SpanKY complained that he cannot set a custom die message then. But this is
not needed here, since every do* command can be clearly identified by the
argument and the directory it will
On Monday 17 July 2006 11:14, Aron Griffis wrote:
Vapier wrote: [Thu Jul 13 2006, 11:32:39PM EDT]
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 13:37, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
SpanKY complained that he cannot set a custom die message then. But
this is not needed here, since every do* command can be clearly
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 06:00:04PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
at this point i'm against it due to the loss of information/granularity in
the
die message ... and utilizing DIE_MSG is garbage
if die can be made more useful, then i'd be for the do* functions calling die
for me
-mike
How
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 18:12, John Myers wrote:
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 14:36, Steve Dibb wrote:
Well, it could happen while testing an ebuild. :) I'd be pretty ticked
if I were testing Qt and I didn't realize they did change the doc files
around before doing a test run.
Besides
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 13:37, Stefan Schweizer wrote:
SpanKY complained that he cannot set a custom die message then. But this is
not needed here, since every do* command can be clearly identified by the
argument and the directory it will be installed to.
except for the times where the do
Hi,
This came up in Bug 138792 [dobin etc. should automatically die on failure]
It needs more discussion on the mailing lists.
Some excerpts from the bug: The proposal from Paul Bredbury:
Hi, I propose that the following ebuild commands themselves *die* on
failure, because the vast majority of
Stefan Schweizer wrote: [Wed Jul 12 2006, 01:37:44PM EDT]
This came up in Bug 138792 [dobin etc. should automatically die on failure]
Since do* would become functions in this case, you'll have to fix the
few ebuilds that use them on the RHS of xargs.
grep -r --include \*.ebuild -E 'xargs
Stefan Schweizer wrote:
Jason Stubbs called for consistency .. i.e making doman and dodoc also die
when nothing the file does not exist. A simple workaround in case an ebuild
is broken: [ -f xxx ] dodoc xxx
Uh... Sorry but it's pretty hard to imagine something more annoying than
an ebuild
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:11:01PM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Uh... Sorry but it's pretty hard to imagine something more annoying than
an ebuild that dies after a couple of hours compile just because
upstream decided to rename Changelog.txt to ChangeLog.txt and noone
noticed during version bump,
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 23:11:01 +0200 Jakub Moc [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| Stefan Schweizer wrote:
| Jason Stubbs called for consistency .. i.e making doman and dodoc
| also die when nothing the file does not exist. A simple workaround
| in case an ebuild is broken: [ -f xxx ] dodoc xxx
|
|
Jakub Moc wrote: [Wed Jul 12 2006, 05:11:01PM EDT]
Uh... Sorry but it's pretty hard to imagine something more annoying
than an ebuild that dies after a couple of hours compile just
because upstream decided to rename Changelog.txt to ChangeLog.txt
and noone noticed during version bump, or
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 23:21, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
How could that slip through the initial testing of the ebuild
performed by the developer doing the version bump?
I think that is the point, during testing. If I'm testing the version bump of
something that takes 2 hours to build, I'll
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:11:01PM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Uh... Sorry but it's pretty hard to imagine something more annoying than
an ebuild that dies after a couple of hours compile just because
upstream decided to rename Changelog.txt to ChangeLog.txt and noone
Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 11:11:01PM +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
Uh... Sorry but it's pretty hard to imagine something more annoying than
an ebuild that dies after a couple of hours compile just because
upstream decided to rename Changelog.txt to ChangeLog.txt and noone
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 14:36, Steve Dibb wrote:
Well, it could happen while testing an ebuild. :) I'd be pretty ticked
if I were testing Qt and I didn't realize they did change the doc files
around before doing a test run.
Besides that though, imho, a simple function with a boolean return
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:46:32 -0700 Donnie Berkholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| It couldn't, but this change isn't being made with a bump. We haven't
| been assured those doing the change right now are going to test every
| package using doman, dodoc, etc.. Packages will probably start failing
|
16 matches
Mail list logo
