Duncan kirjoitti: > Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], > excerpted below, on Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:45:15 +0300: > >> Alin Năstac kirjoitti: >>> Duncan wrote: >>>> If the user sees it, it means the maintainer failed to do his job. >>>> The tarball couldn't have even been changed upstream without notice, >>>> since it'd then fail the sanity/security/signing checks. I think >>>> that's the suggestion, that it be mandatory for maintainers to deal >>>> with, and the user shouldn't ever see it. >>>> >>>> >>> You seems to forget the fact that Gentoo is a source distro and as >>> such, emerge foo can fail on users boxes while on maintainer's box >>> works like a charm. >>> >>> >> Indeed but this really doesn't have much to do with using || die with >> dodoc. > > Agreed. Within the limited scope of dodoc, under what legitimate > circumstances might a file /not/ be there to "dodoc" for a user, when > it's there for a maintainer? (OTOH, now that portage is recompressing > all such files based on the PORTAGE_COMPRESS setting, I suppose it's > possible the user screwed up their PORTAGE_COMPRESS setting. Still, if > they screw up portage variables they should /expect/ it to have problems.) >
No. PORTAGE_COMPRESS doesn't affect what's inside upstream tarballs :) Read /usr/lib/portage/bin/dodoc and you will see that it's actually dodoc that calls ecompress :) Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
