Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal of accepting arguments to `default` in src_install (and more?) phases in EAPI=5 (for the next council meeting?)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 18:16:36
Message-Id: 4FAEA7FD.5020009@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal of accepting arguments to `default` in src_install (and more?) phases in EAPI=5 (for the next council meeting?) by "Michał Górny"
On 05/12/2012 09:09 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:57:07 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller<ulm@g.o> wrote: > >>> The current workaround for this is to use EXTRA_EMAKE from ebuild, >>> but I find this rather ugly (if not even forbidden by some PMS >>> magic?) >> >> EXTRA_EMAKE isn't mentioned by the PMS. Do all package managers >> support this variable? Portage does since 2004 at least. > > EXTRA_EMAKE isn't supposed to be mentioned there. It's an internal use > variable for users who need to pass something specific to make. > >>> Can we make econf in src_configure, emake in src_compile, and emake >>> install in src_install accept arguments "$@" in EAPI=5, please? >> >> I'd rather document EXTRA_EMAKE and EXTRA_ECONF in the spec, either >> retroactively (in case all package managers support these variables >> already), or for EAPI 5. It would accomplish the same as your >> proposal, even without the need to add an explicit src_install >> function. > > As above. Otherwise, we'll end up reimplementing just another variable > to let users pass their custom arguments. >
Yeah, I think we should keep these EXTRA_* for users only and have something else for the ebuilds (And I'm sure I don't remember wrong by saying some people have quite passionately resisted using EXTRA_ECONF within an ebuild in the past for this exact reasoning) - Samuli