Ühel kenal päeval, E, 13.12.2021 kell 10:19, kirjutas Marek Szuba: > On 2021-12-09 15:04, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Why do you need to use random name in the first place? We have > > full > > control over T, so why not just hardcode a good name? > > Having discussed the matter with eclass maintainers on IRC, they are > not > entirely sure whether using a static name in this context is entirely > safe. There were also concerns about making this change too > aggressive > given it affects all supported EAPIs. Therefore, we have decided to > play > it safe and stick as closely to old behaviour as possible, at least > for now. > > Anyway, merged a moment ago.
Actually I kind of preferred a static name over straight mktemp, because emktemp supported other cases than a pure mktemp usage does. But I don't know if it could ever clash things in some weird situations. I think they won't, but I don't know if PMS guarantees that or just happens how portage works right now (e.g. the postrm currently happening in a separate ._unmerge directory path for $T; multilib postinst happening sequentially, etc). Thinking it through again a bit, straight mktemp can't be worse than a static name anyways (provided mktemp exists, which emktemp handled..), so we're good there, but provided you or someone thinks through the corner-cases, I'm in favor of a static name if it doesn't have any trouble. Mart
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
