Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-21 Thread Kent Fredric
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 08:44:33 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Obviously they could be identified by their explicit ${FILESDIR}. My question is because I've had a difficulty understanding how repoman "sees" the ebuild. I was under the impression repoman would either have to rely

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-21 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016, Kent Fredric wrote: >> Under that new scheme, how would I apply patches unpacked into >> WORKDIR? In EAPI 6, I can put them into the PATCHES variable and use >> the default src_prepare to process it. > oh. Right. Huh, I had somehow overlooked there was already a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-20 Thread Kent Fredric
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 18:14:58 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Under that new scheme, how would I apply patches unpacked into > WORKDIR? In EAPI 6, I can put them into the PATCHES variable and use > the default src_prepare to process it. oh. Right. Huh, I had somehow overlooked

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-20 Thread Kent Fredric
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 18:14:58 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Under that new scheme, how would I apply patches unpacked into > WORKDIR? In EAPI 6, I can put them into the PATCHES variable and use > the default src_prepare to process it. Can you give me a clearer example of what

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-20 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2016, Kent Fredric wrote: > So a reduced suggestion would be: > 1. Add a PATCHES var to EAPI7 > 2. PATCHES is analogous to SRC_URI, a string > 3. PATCHES supports USE conditionals I am not convinced that USE-conditional patching should be encouraged. Because so far the

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-20 Thread Kent Fredric
On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 09:02:41 +0200 Michał Górny wrote: > Finally, the same though occurred to me as to ulm. People will forget > to update the variable. They will forget to update it when adding, > and they will waste their time on build that is going to fail somewhere > at

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-20 Thread Michał Górny
On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 00:30:31 +1200 Kent Fredric wrote: > Just an idea that seemed obvious enough and obviously missing. Sounds like a great way to discourage people from contributing even further. I'm going to say that developers leaving mess in their FILESDIR is rather a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-16 Thread Kent Fredric
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 20:34:49 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > That is, similar syntax as for SRC_URI? That would make parsing of the > FILES variable by ebuilds practically impossible. So presumably, one > would need another variable similar to A then, containing the files > from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-16 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016, Zac Medico wrote: > If FILES supports USE conditionals, That is, similar syntax as for SRC_URI? That would make parsing of the FILES variable by ebuilds practically impossible. So presumably, one would need another variable similar to A then, containing the files from

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-16 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
On 16/09/16 11:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > AFAICS that proposal goes into a direction which is somewhat opposite > to what we have pursued in EAPI 6. There, we have allowed directories > as arguments to eapply, in order to simplify application of patchsets. > Now maintainers would have to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-16 Thread Zac Medico
On 09/16/2016 08:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Kent Fredric wrote: >> 4. Due to referential integrity, it should be trivial to identify which >> files are needed by a given ebuild, and which files are now redundant, >> assisting with keeping the tree pruned. > > How

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-16 Thread Kent Fredric
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:20:28 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > 3. Each entry in FILES dictates that the given file is "Used by" the > > ebuild. > > Do you mean "file" in its Unix meaning here, i.e. including > directories? Or only regular files? I'd say regular files for now.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposed future EAPI feature: FILES whitelist

2016-09-16 Thread Mart Raudsepp
Ühel kenal päeval, R, 16.09.2016 kell 17:20, kirjutas Ulrich Mueller: > How does a file in FILESDIR get stale? The typical scenario is that a > patch will no longer be needed after a version bump and pruning of > old > ebuild versions. I fear that with FILES the problem would simply be > shifted: