|Summary:||[Future EAPI] keepdir could additionally run fowners/fperms|
|Product:||Gentoo Hosted Projects||Reporter:||Agostino Sarubbo <ago>|
|Package list:||Runtime testing required:||---|
|Bug Depends on:|
Description Agostino Sarubbo 2013-09-01 18:44:58 UTC
I just noticed that usually we do: keepdir $directory fowners user:group $directory fperms $number $directory Now, we can improve keepdir to do: keepdir $directory user:group $number Note: in this manner, keepdir $dir1 $dir2 won't work, so we can add an option to avoid the problem Discussed it with Zac on irc and he seems positive. Any other opinion?
Comment 1 Ulrich Müller 2014-01-13 19:13:33 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.
Comment 2 Michał Górny 2015-11-25 20:08:57 UTC
I'd vote for WONTFIX-ing this.
Comment 3 Ulrich Müller 2017-09-08 18:26:36 UTC
(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.