Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 03:46:50
Message-Id: CAFWqQMRQvLtrZZM43BzJSV+UxxEwwN1vwaHjPoH6HGSO8TCbqg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead by Samuli Suominen
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> >> On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote: >>> >>> On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>> >>>> On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into >>>>>> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't >>>>>> have >>>>>> to call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. >>>>>> unfortunately this adds pointless overhead to binpkgs.  can we please >>>>>> move away from this practice ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3 variables, >>>>> DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare >>>> >>>> >>>> these are static variables, so defining them in a func is pointless >>> >>> >>> "sort of" not necessarily, 'has $useflag && PATCHES+=( )' has been used >>> before, not sure if it's used in tree right now or not >> >> >> as we've always said, USE conditional patches are to be highly discouraged > > > I agree BUT there are cases where it's OK to use conditional patching: > > For example, libfoo-0.1.1 is broken and is fixed in git for master which > will be in next release. The fix doesn't apply to 0.1.1 cleanly without > heavy modifications. > Then you would take the easiest possible route to get 0.1.1 working again, > with the comfort of knowing it's properly fixed for the next version. > > -Samuli >
I assume you mean libfoo-0.1.1 is broken when USE=bar is enabled and you get a patch for that conditional case when USE=bar is enabled. Either way, the better solution is to mask it and have people use libfoo-0.1.0 -- Doug Goldstein

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>