On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:40 PM, Ferris McCormick <fmc...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 23:50:47 +0100
> Jan Kundrát <j...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Ferris McCormick wrote:
>> > 'cp -i' will at least ask a question, and I find that marginally better
>> > --- it's confusing, but at least it says something. But it seems to me
>> > that if we hit this case, no one (including the package owner) knows
>> > which .xml file to use, so stopping the build makes sense, but do it
>> > with some message that explains exactly what is going on.
>>
>> The problem is that the whole build won't *abort*, but rather become
>> interactive.
>>
>> I for one think that having it die (in the unlikely case that s
>> developer made a mistake) is better than letting it hang indefinitely
>> (in the unlikely case that a developer made a mistake) :).
>
> That's what I meant by "stopping the build". My concern is that when
> we do stop the build, we do it with some useful error message and make
> it clear that the user did not screw up and so should do something to
> fix it. ("die file exists" looks to me like an attempt to ask the user
> to fix something, not an ebuild problem.)
Sure. Makes sense.
>
> As I think about it, I am not sure how this could happen. It would
> either be an ebuild that the package owner never tried or a change in
> the source file. And why wouldn't a change in the source file cause an
> immediate termination because the length would suddenly be wrong? And
Regardless of *how* it happens, my only point is to not put any
interactiveness in ebuilds for *whatever* reason. If it does prompt
for a response (again, for whatever reason) then all of portage's
background features are "broke" (waiting for input). So, as I
suggested in irc, the two solutions are to use the suggested method in
the OP or to set PROPERTIES=interactive in the ebuild..either way will
work. I would personally avoid the properties route on ebuilds that I
write though because it doesn't *need* to be interactive.
-Jeremy
> if the now-upstream-supplied build.xml file is different from the one
> the developer put together, wouldn't you probably want a revision bump
> at that point?
>> Think about
>> insane users setting up cronjobs and what not...
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -jkt
>>
>> --
>> cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
>>
> Clearly, I misspoke when I said I'd not respond further. :)
>
> Regards,
> Ferris
> --
> Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) <fmc...@gentoo.org>
> Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Userrel, Trustees)
>
