Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 470094 - [Future EAPI] parent files should support comments/blank lines
Summary: [Future EAPI] parent files should support comments/blank lines
Status: CONFIRMED
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Hosted Projects
Classification: Unclassified
Component: PMS/EAPI (show other bugs)
Hardware: All Linux
: Normal normal (vote)
Assignee: PMS/EAPI
URL:
Whiteboard: feasible-for-next-eapi
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks: future-eapi
  Show dependency tree
 
Reported: 2013-05-16 17:59 UTC by Tom Wijsman (TomWij) (RETIRED)
Modified: 2021-08-31 14:17 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Tom Wijsman (TomWij) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2013-05-16 17:59:02 UTC
See URL field, section "5.2.1 The parent file" mentions that the parent file must not contain comments.

The file ${PORTDIR}/profiles/arch/amd64/x32/parent voids this specification.

This could break package managers who follow 5.2.1 strictly and decide to ignore the parent file instead of ignoring the comment; or, they may be unable to parse the syntax since they don't expect comments and bail out. Portage silently ignores them, not a good thing but it's probably to avoid an error towards users; but any other current or future package manager may behave quite different.

Sorry for filing this, but I think it is worth pointing out for the sake of QA.

If I assigned this bug wrong, feel free to reassign.
Comment 1 Tom Wijsman (TomWij) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2014-01-07 12:19:10 UTC
 +  07 Jan 2014; Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org> x32/parent:
 +  [QA] Removed comment from x32/parent per PMS for bug #470094.

Changed this bug such that it can track the comment instead:

    # Need to clobber amd64 pulling in lib32 on us.
Comment 2 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2014-01-07 18:45:27 UTC
is there actually a PM that fails on this ?  if not, then it seems a lot saner to update PMS to reflect reality instead of pointlessly deleting useful documentation.
Comment 3 Tom Wijsman (TomWij) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2014-01-07 19:04:37 UTC
Is there an actual use case for documentation other than hiding away bugs in it?
Comment 4 SpanKY gentoo-dev 2014-05-04 15:32:43 UTC
(In reply to Tom Wijsman (TomWij) from comment #3)

yes, documentation in parent files are useful.  no, it isn't restricted to "hiding bugs" which this certainly is not doing.

let's redirect this bug like it should have been originally.
Comment 5 Tom Wijsman (TomWij) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2014-05-04 15:37:41 UTC
A comment hidden away in a file is a bug that isn't tracked, and thus is hidden.
Comment 6 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2014-05-04 16:19:33 UTC
Any reason why we can't have _all_ files in profiles (with the obvious exception of the eapi file) support comments and line continuation?

I'd rather have uniform rules, instead of another special case.
Comment 7 Tom Wijsman (TomWij) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2014-05-04 16:35:22 UTC
(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #6)
> Any reason why we can't have _all_ files in profiles (with the obvious
> exception of the eapi file) support comments and line continuation?
> 
> I'd rather have uniform rules, instead of another special case.

I'll answer with a question: Why is /eapi an exception and the /parent not one?
Comment 8 Ciaran McCreesh 2014-05-04 16:40:29 UTC
Hysterical raisins...
Comment 9 Ulrich Müller gentoo-dev 2014-05-04 16:57:19 UTC
(In reply to Tom Wijsman (TomWij) from comment #7)
> I'll answer with a question: Why is /eapi an exception and the /parent not
> one?

Because the eapi file itself cannot have an EAPI dependent syntax.
Comment 10 Tom Wijsman (TomWij) (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2014-05-04 17:09:54 UTC
(In reply to Ciaran McCreesh from comment #8)
> Hysterical raisins...

Well, historically, /parent is an exception too; so, that's not a reason.

What if we want a comment in /eapi? Because setting a specific /eapi file to another EAPI than 5 must have been with a good reason for a comment; so, there is not really a difference between /eapi and /parent if you know what I mean.

Historically, there isn't a difference; they both don't allow comments, so, the question here should therefore be if we should support comments in both.

That is, if we really don't want another special case; all or nothing works better, unless we want this bug to repeat for /eapi in the future.

If we change something, please consider the most consistent approach; comments everywhere, as there is no reason for exceptions. (I'm not for or against this)

(In reply to Ulrich Müller from comment #9)
> Because the eapi file itself cannot have an EAPI dependent syntax.

Given that this is defined in the PMS, you can change this in the next PMS version; then towards the future, it should be easy to deprecate this.