| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> 2. eapply_user really belongs in the PM, especially if it's run by |
| 4 |
>> default. And it needs patch applying function. And if we have to |
| 5 |
>> implement patch applying function anyway, we may as well make it |
| 6 |
>> public to avoid unnecessary duplication. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Unreliable. The ebuild may define its own src_prepare function |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
That eapply_user is called can be enforced by repoman, or by a QA |
| 11 |
warning. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> or the PM might define eapply_user as a no-op, which is valid as |
| 14 |
> per PMS. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Sure, it is implementation defined. Otherwise PMS would have to |
| 17 |
specify all the details, e.g. where does the package manager look |
| 18 |
for user-supplied patches and how are patch directories organised. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Ulrich |
Archives