1 |
On 06/20/2012 06:46 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
>>> |
5 |
>>> On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote: |
6 |
>>>> |
7 |
>>>> On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
8 |
>>>>> |
9 |
>>>>> On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote: |
10 |
>>>>>> |
11 |
>>>>>> On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
12 |
>>>>>>> |
13 |
>>>>>>> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into |
14 |
>>>>>>> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't |
15 |
>>>>>>> have |
16 |
>>>>>>> to call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. |
17 |
>>>>>>> unfortunately this adds pointless overhead to binpkgs. can we please |
18 |
>>>>>>> move away from this practice ? |
19 |
>>>>>> |
20 |
>>>>>> |
21 |
>>>>>> Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3 variables, |
22 |
>>>>>> DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare |
23 |
>>>>> |
24 |
>>>>> |
25 |
>>>>> these are static variables, so defining them in a func is pointless |
26 |
>>>> |
27 |
>>>> |
28 |
>>>> "sort of" not necessarily, 'has $useflag && PATCHES+=( )' has been used |
29 |
>>>> before, not sure if it's used in tree right now or not |
30 |
>>> |
31 |
>>> |
32 |
>>> as we've always said, USE conditional patches are to be highly discouraged |
33 |
>> |
34 |
>> |
35 |
>> I agree BUT there are cases where it's OK to use conditional patching: |
36 |
>> |
37 |
>> For example, libfoo-0.1.1 is broken and is fixed in git for master which |
38 |
>> will be in next release. The fix doesn't apply to 0.1.1 cleanly without |
39 |
>> heavy modifications. |
40 |
>> Then you would take the easiest possible route to get 0.1.1 working again, |
41 |
>> with the comfort of knowing it's properly fixed for the next version. |
42 |
>> |
43 |
>> -Samuli |
44 |
>> |
45 |
> |
46 |
> I assume you mean libfoo-0.1.1 is broken when USE=bar is enabled and |
47 |
> you get a patch for that conditional case when USE=bar is enabled. |
48 |
|
49 |
Right. Of course. |
50 |
|
51 |
> Either way, the better solution is to mask it and have people use libfoo-0.1.0 |
52 |
> |
53 |
|
54 |
Doesn't really apply to this case: |
55 |
Think about masking stable Xfce 4.10 when the fix is in git that will be |
56 |
released as 4.12 in about year. ;-) |
57 |
|
58 |
- Samuli |