Bug 82597 – Make repoman more modular so it's easier to extend

• Product: Portage Development
• Status: RESOLVED LATER

[Description Heinrich Wendel (RETIRED) 2005-02-19 10:21:17 UTC]

The repoman sourcecode is a mess currently. I tried to extend it with some functionality from aliz's "aging ebuilds" script, but I failed. I think repoman needs a complete rewrite to support modular QA tests. This would make it easier to extend and less buggi.

[Comment 1 Heinrich Wendel (RETIRED) 2005-02-19 10:23:56 UTC]

Btw. The aging ebuilds script can be found here: http://gentoo.tamperd.net/stable

It does the following tests, which in my opinion should be added to repoman
* if a version has been masked for 30 days or more.
* if an arch was in KEYWORDS in an older ebuild, but not in the newer ones.
* if SRC_URI contains hosts specified in thirdpartymirrors.
* if ebuild uses patch instead of epatch.
* if ebuild sets S to ${WORKDIR}/${P}.
* if ebuild redefines P, PV, PN or PF.
* if ebuild doesn't inherit eutils when it uses functions from eutils.
* if ebuild doesn't inherit flag-o-matic when it uses functions from flag-o-matic.
* if ebuild has $HOMEPAGE in SRC_URI (cosmetic).
* if ebuild has $PN in SRC_URI (cosmetic).
* if ebuild forces -fPIC flag to CFLAGS.
* if ebuild has deprecated WANT_AUTO(CONF|MAKE)_?_?.
* if ebuild uses is-flag -fPIC, should be changed to has_fpic.
* if ebuild appends $RDEPEND or $DEPEND to $RDEPEND or $DEPEND to $DEPEND.
* if ebuild has arch keyword(s) in iuse.
* if ebuild overrides MAKEOPTS.
* if ebuild has automake, autoconf or libtool in RDEPEND.
* if ebuild exists in ChangeLog.

Another nice thing would be a stale ebuild test.

[Comment 2 Heinrich Wendel (RETIRED) 2005-02-21 10:25:56 UTC]

another nice test would be to test if an ebuild sets MAKEOPTS

[Comment 3 Brian Harring (RETIRED) 2005-02-28 01:43:24 UTC]

Anyone game for taking a shot at this?

[Comment 4 Alec Warner (RETIRED) 2005-05-24 12:09:41 UTC]

Might want to make this a [GOAL] of 2.1?  I'd rather have a bunch of the new 
stuff in rather than write it for the current codebase.  Otherwise Repoman would 
need a rewrite again to work with the new code ( aka 2 rewrites total ).

[Comment 5 Alec Warner (RETIRED) 2005-08-12 23:08:41 UTC]

I know swegener said he wrote something, I've been bugging him to post the 
source somewhere ;)

[Comment 6 Jason Stubbs (RETIRED) 2005-10-16 08:21:34 UTC]

Closing this as LATER because it's not a bug or feature request and it's not 
qualifiable.