Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] selinux-policy-2.eclass: respect the sanctity of -rN for EAPI=8

Ulrich Müller <[email protected]> writes:

>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Apr 2026, Rahul Sandhu wrote:
>  
>> +if [[ ${EAPI} = 7 ]]; then
>> +	# @ECLASS_VARIABLE: BASEPOL
>> +	# @DESCRIPTION:
>> +	# This variable contains the version string of the selinux-base-policy package
>> +	# that this module build depends on. It is used to patch with the appropriate
>> +	# patch bundle(s) that are part of selinux-base-policy.
>> +	: "${BASEPOL:="${PVR}"}"
>> +else
>> +	# @ECLASS_VARIABLE: BASEPOL
>> +	# @DESCRIPTION:
>> +	# This variable contains the version string of the selinux-base-policy package
>> +	# that this module build depends on. It is used to patch with the appropriate
>> +	# patch bundle(s) that are part of selinux-base-policy.
>> +	# _pN corresponds to -rN in the patch bundle(s).
>> +	: "${BASEPOL:="${PV/_p/-r}"}"
>> +fi
>  
> This won't work. eclass-to-manpage expects eclass documentation to be
> left-aligned. Anything that is indented will be ignored.
>
> You also cannot have a conditional there, i.e. if both comments were
> without indentation then eclass-to-manpage would see a duplicate
> definition and would terminate with an error.

Yes. Just change it so that it's one description where the text mentions
different behaviour for EAPI 7 vs other values.

That's better anyway even if you ignore alignment or processing
problems -- what are the semantics supposed to be for a duplicate
eclassdoc? :)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQEBBAEWCgCpFiEEJaa7iN2bdkxrVUHCc4QJ9SDfkZAFAmnV4uAbFIAAAAAABAAO
bWFudTIsMi41KzEuMTIsMiwyXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25z
Lm9wZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQyNUE2QkI4OEREOUI3NjRDNkI1NTQx
QzI3Mzg0MDlGNTIwREY5MTkwDxxzYW1AZ2VudG9vLm9yZwAKCRBzhAn1IN+RkOJm
AP4vWTDsJW0zXOTte3f0StWXabZILbxCja/1uFwrYaxYtwD+KIbArGgCF2YZZhXf
5etjSyO/PDMlQKP5oGiD5hvcAAI=
=p9wb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----