| 1 |
On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 23:24:47 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:08:38 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:42:20 +0200 |
| 8 |
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > [Resending since my first message didn't make it to |
| 11 |
> > > -dev-announce.] |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > The first draft of EAPI 6 is ready. I shall post it as a series of |
| 14 |
> > > 22 patches following this message in the gentoo-pms mailing list. |
| 15 |
> > > |
| 16 |
> > > Please review. The goal is to have the draft ready for approval |
| 17 |
> > > in the council's November meeting. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > Sorry for coming very late on this, but what is the rationale behind |
| 20 |
> > setting in stone an 'eapply' different to an 'epatch' that has been |
| 21 |
> > widely tested for decades now ? Or even defining eapply in PMS ? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> How many decades, exactly? ;-) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
from 1.5 to 1.6 I'd say :p |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
[...] |
| 28 |
> > Also, mandating -p1 seems quite limiting: e.g. 'svn diff -rX:Y' |
| 29 |
> > extracts -p0 patches by default here. Or when $S is actually a |
| 30 |
> > subdir of a repository, this will make standard git format-patch |
| 31 |
> > generated patches unusable. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> The poor man's autodetection implemented in epatch was... well, poor. |
| 34 |
> It had its corner cases when it failed hard, it was complex and made |
| 35 |
> error handling PITA (which patch invocation really failed?!). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
There's a log for understanding which invocation failed. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
> It's trivial to change patch to -p1 (I think patchutils can do that). |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
It is. But the above cases were not whether it is possible, but rather |
| 42 |
desirable. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> It's beneficial to keep patches with predictable directory structure. |
| 45 |
> And after all, you can use 'eapply -pN' explicitly. And yes, I know |
| 46 |
> you hate having to think instead of having some random hidden |
| 47 |
> implicit, likely-to-fail logic do it for you. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Well, there's that, but I also wonder why every single ebuild uses |
| 50 |
epatch and not 'patch -p1 < ...' directly if epatch is so bad... |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
But my point was not there: I still fail to understand why we should |
| 53 |
set in stone something not so well tested in comparison to epatch, that |
| 54 |
doesn't seem to provide any gain besides a default phase that an eclass |
| 55 |
can also provide, that has less features and that can't be |
| 56 |
changed/fixed easily. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Alexis. |
Archives