Summary: | [Future EAPI] keepdir could additionally run fowners/fperms | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Hosted Projects | Reporter: | Agostino Sarubbo <ago> |
Component: | PMS/EAPI | Assignee: | PMS/EAPI <pms> |
Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
Severity: | enhancement | CC: | esigra, pacho |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 174380 |
Description
Agostino Sarubbo
2013-09-01 18:44:58 UTC
Do the advantages of this (if there are any) outweigh additional complexity of EAPI dependent behaviour? Also, I find many ebuilds where keepdir is _not_ followed by fowners and fperms. (In reply to Agostino Sarubbo from comment #0) > keepdir $directory user:group $number I guess I would have to look this up each time I use the command. :-/ IMHO, it's not improving readability of the ebuild, as compared to the separate fowners and fperms. I'd vote for WONTFIX-ing this. (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #2) > I'd vote for WONTFIX-ing this. Closing, because I believe that there is little advantage in sometimes saving two lines. OTOH, this would increase complexity of the spec, and ebuilds would have worse readability. If you disagree, please discuss it in the -dev mailing list. |