On 29.08.2007, at 15:30, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2007-08-27 23:39:04 -0400, Juan Manuel Palacios wrote:
If I'm reading you correctly, you're proposing a Portfile only be accepted as clean if it specifically states it doesn't violate the mtree? If so, such functionality would require us going through every single one of our Portfiles and adapting them accordingly... which is needless to say a daunting task.
Their maintainers could do that (if the warning isn't sufficient for them).
Portfiles that conform to our standards should be the norm, so only violators should have to indicate their non-standard behavior. Otherwise this would be like having to mark all transports that do NOT carry nuclear waste; every waste-bin would needs to carry a "no- biohazard" sign...
To increase mtree violations visibility, at least for the time being, I propose promoting them to verbose output.
mtree violations aren't much visible if they aren't fatal.
Well, I actually wanted to do this initially, leading to many angry people who were caught off-guard with non-functional ports. The current state is that a violation is displayed via 'ui_msg', so everyone will see it. We can switch this behavior to a fatal one in one of our next releases, giving people a bit of time to realize those warnings and perhaps even fix them... Regards, -Markus --- Markus W. Weissmann http://www.mweissmann.de/