On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:16:05PM -0700, Brian Harring wrote: > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 07:00:16PM +0100, David Leverton wrote: > > On Thursday 12 June 2008 02:46:03 Jim Ramsay wrote: > > > David Leverton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Since at least one ebuild has already been modified specifically to > > > > work around the bug, I'd say it's pretty real. > > > > > > For those of us trying to play along at home, which one is this? > > > > http://tinyurl.com/4w4t69 > > Few things I'll note about this stupid, stupid mess- looks of it, > paludis folk have known about this for a while. In other words, folk > bitching about 'improving' QA intentionally sat on a bug for the sake > of mocking, bug which according to them ebuild devs have supposedly > worked around (yet to see it, but it's viable). > > Useful to the whole, I'm sure. Same folk in control of PMS for those > playing the home game, politics over QA seemingly. > > So what was the bug? Aside from having to walk the full eapi-1 bugs, > (ebuild referenced wasn't of use), majority of which actually *is* > tested in pkgcore (unlike portage which makes one wonder why pkgcore > is targeted), the fault is a simple defaulting of an unset var being > missed in implementing an undocumented spec (honestly, where is eapi1 > spec?). > > Literally, the BS of the last day all comes down to inability to state > the following: > > === modified file 'pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh' > --- pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh 2007-11-12 01:17:24 > +0000 > +++ pkgcore/bin/ebuild-env/ebuild-functions.sh 2008-06-11 22:24:16 > +0000 > @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ src_compile > { > if [ "${EAPI:-0}" == 0 ] ; then > [ -x ./configure ] && econf > - elif [ -x ${ECONF_SOURCE}/configure ]; then > + elif [ -x ${ECONF_SOURCE:-.}/configure ]; then > econf || die "econf failed" > fi > if [ -f Makefile ] || [ -f GNUmakefile ] || [ -f makefile ]; then > >
I'm not quite sure how you're trying to present this, but are you really trying to say that EAPI 1 isn't documented? I myself found this in pms.pdf in 2 minutes(it's section 10.1.3). I wouldn't exactly say it's because it was "missed in implementing an undocumented spec."
pgpcHKJFXxnuK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
