| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:14:55PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote: |
| 2 |
> Sven Wegener wrote: [Wed Jul 06 2005, 08:04:04PM EDT] |
| 3 |
> > I'm writing this mail to bring you a thought we had over on freenode |
| 4 |
> > in the #gentoo-portage channel. We would like to split up |
| 5 |
> > src_compile. The new src_configure should just do the econf part and |
| 6 |
> > src_compile should do the emake part. This represents the general |
| 7 |
> > 3-step[1] installation in a much better way. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> This would be great in that it would be possible to do: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> ebuild blah.ebuild configure |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> then change to the directory and work on it. But the other side of |
| 14 |
> the coin is that you're talking about a LOT of ebuild changes, right? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yes, but please see my EBUILD_FORMAT mail on how we'll provide backward |
| 17 |
compatibility. It boils down to set EBUILD_FORMAT to the right value and |
| 18 |
portage knows that the ebuild uses src_configure in addition to |
| 19 |
src_compile. As we need to touch ebuilds for the src_configure change we |
| 20 |
can also add the EBUILD_FORMAT variable in one go. If EBUILD_FORMAT is |
| 21 |
unset, just use old behaviour. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Sven |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Sven Wegener |
| 27 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 28 |
http://www.gentoo.org/ |
Archives