| 1 |
On 04/26/2012 02:55 AM, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Zac Medico posted on Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:26:24 -0700 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 04/25/2012 11:18 PM, Duncan wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> IOW, let's quit letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and just |
| 6 |
>>> get on with it, already. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> If that means settling on something that's fragile and prone to lots of |
| 9 |
>> bug reports, then it's not really practical, because it wastes peoples |
| 10 |
>> time (and time is our most valuable resource). |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> IMO it's trying to do too much with it that's the fragile bit. If all it |
| 13 |
> does is the patching, but it /always/ does the patching (unlike the hit- |
| 14 |
> and-miss we get now), and people know they need to use the overlay-ebuild |
| 15 |
> method to do anything beyond patching, including if they need to re- |
| 16 |
> invoke eautoreconf, then it should "just work". Right now we're talking |
| 17 |
> about all this fancy stuff, detecting when we need to automatically run |
| 18 |
> eautoreconf, etc, and /that/ seems to me to be the fragile bit. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. If we ignore the problem, |
| 21 |
then we end up dealing with bug reports of the form "FEATURES=userpatch |
| 22 |
doesn't work with this particular patch set" until the end of time. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Also, don't forget to consider the possibility of interference between |
| 25 |
FEATURES=userpatch and epatch_user (applying same patches twice). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Overall, the "apply_user_patches_here" approach [1] seems pretty |
| 28 |
reasonable to me. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
[1] |
| 31 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c228be85e0c4e577ad194e6004d59062.xml |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Thanks, |
| 34 |
Zac |
Archives