Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: hasufell@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH vcs-snapshot] Use ${WORKDIR}/${P} rather than ${S} to support ${S} overrides.
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:06:11
Message-Id: 20120604220626.2630937b@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH vcs-snapshot] Use ${WORKDIR}/${P} rather than ${S} to support ${S} overrides. by hasufell
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:26:00 +0200
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote:

> But minetest in sunrise for example which has two different repos, one > for the engine, one for the data. It's currently split in two, but I > guess I will merge those soon.
Why? Is there a good reason to merge two repos into one ebuild? Does upstream guarantee that the releases will always be synced? Does it benefit users?
> Lately there was an ebuild proposal in sunrise too which had that > issue, see here https://gist.github.com/2829184
That's a more likely case. But still such a change would involve changing an established API heavily which I really dislike.
> It would also enable me to use gtk-youtube-viewer and youtube-viewer > in one ebuild with vcs-snapshot eclass while adding a gtk useflag > (currently split too). > Otherwise I will have to fix it on my own again.
Once again: does it benefit user? Or just does it imply that starting or stopping to use gtk part requires user to rebuild the whole thing?
> I find the logic very clear: > > SRC="https://my/github/shit -> ${P}.tar.gz" > results in ${WORKDIR}/${P} > and > SRC="https://my/github/shit -> ${P}-src.tar.gz" > results in ${WORKDIR}/${P}-src
I really don't mind the logic. I'm just aware that it is a little late to introduce such a destructive change, especially that you yourself mentioned that it will break existing ebuilds. I will be happy to implement it if you can get more approval for that change. Or else we should consider jumping with the eclass to -r1 while it isn't widespread too much. -- Best regards, Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies