Summary: | devmanual doesn't mention DISTDIR | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Documentation | Reporter: | Marijn Schouten (RETIRED) <hkbst> |
Component: | [OLD] Developer Handbook | Assignee: | Gentoo Community Relations Team <comrel> |
Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | dev-portage, pms |
Priority: | High | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 172589 | ||
Attachments: | devmanual patch |
Description
Marijn Schouten (RETIRED)
2007-04-26 16:51:48 UTC
1) Adding pms@ because DISTDIR is not mentioned in it. 2) Adding devrel@ because "Typically, this is /usr/portage/distfiles." is not correct. Portage creates a directory with symlinks to the files mentioned in src_uri so: DISTDIR Contains the path to (the distfiles|a) directory where all the files fetched for the package are stored. (Portage uses aalist for this, so it means all source files in AA and not only the ones needed in A. Why?) BTW: Do we really want to describe the variables in three different documents with three different values? More values in devmanual are not up to date. (In reply to comment #1) > Portage creates a directory with symlinks to the files mentioned in src_uri so: > > DISTDIR Contains the path to (the distfiles|a) directory where all the files > fetched for the package are stored. > > (Portage uses aalist for this, so it means all source files in AA and not only > the ones needed in A. Why?) Originally was using ${A}, not ${AA}; usage of ${AA} explicitly defeats the purpose of DISTDIR indirection (make ebuilds go boom if they have unstated access). Sounds of, inadvertant regression. (In reply to comment #2) > (In reply to comment #1) > > (Portage uses aalist for this, so it means all source files in AA and not only > > the ones needed in A. Why?) > Originally was using ${A}, not ${AA}; usage of ${AA} explicitly defeats the > purpose of DISTDIR indirection (make ebuilds go boom if they have unstated > access). > > Sounds of, inadvertant regression. > Fixed in svn r6437:6439. (In reply to comment #1) > 1) Adding pms@ because DISTDIR is not mentioned in it. > 2) Adding devrel@ because "Typically, this is /usr/portage/distfiles." is not > correct. The above issues still remain. > BTW: Do we really want to describe the variables in three different documents > with three different values? More values in devmanual are not up to date. The redundancy is annoying. Maybe they can be unified somehow or be changed to reference one another. Created attachment 138643 [details, diff]
devmanual patch
Here's what I'm adding to devmanual. If you don't like it, or don't think it sounds correct, hit me and tell me what you think would be better.
(In reply to comment #4) > > BTW: Do we really want to describe the variables in three different documents > > with three different values? More values in devmanual are not up to date. > > The redundancy is annoying. Maybe they can be unified somehow or be changed to > reference one another. > It is annoying, and devmanual has quite a bit that the developer handbook doesn't. It would be nice (in the long run) to make devmanual replace the developer handbook for the technical pieces. I fixed the devmanual issue of not mentioning this variable. Add QA back if you need us again. (In reply to comment #5) > Created an attachment (id=138643) [edit] > devmanual patch > > Here's what I'm adding to devmanual. If you don't like it, or don't think it > sounds correct, hit me and tell me what you think would be better. I think it should mention that DISTDIR is strictly a read-only directory in ebuilds.. It isn't, at least not with EAPI 0/1. It can only become ebuild-read-only if we get src_fetch. Comment on attachment 138643 [details, diff]
devmanual patch
has been applied. thanks
|