Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Doug Goldstein <cardoe@g.o>
Subject: Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 22:46:00 -0500
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
>>>>>> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> to call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass.
>>>>>> unfortunately this adds pointless overhead to binpkgs.  can we please
>>>>>> move away from this practice ?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3 variables,
>>>>> DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> these are static variables, so defining them in a func is pointless
>>>
>>>
>>> "sort of" not necessarily, 'has $useflag && PATCHES+=( )' has been used
>>> before, not sure if it's used in tree right now or not
>>
>>
>> as we've always said, USE conditional patches are to be highly discouraged
>
>
> I agree BUT there are cases where it's OK to use conditional patching:
>
> For example, libfoo-0.1.1 is broken and is fixed in git for master which
> will be in next release. The fix doesn't apply to 0.1.1 cleanly without
> heavy modifications.
> Then you would take the easiest possible route to get 0.1.1 working again,
> with the comfort of knowing it's properly fixed for the next version.
>
> -Samuli
>

I assume you mean libfoo-0.1.1 is broken when USE=bar is enabled and
you get a patch for that conditional case when USE=bar is enabled.

Either way, the better solution is to mask it and have people use libfoo-0.1.0

-- 
Doug Goldstein


Replies:
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
-- Samuli Suominen
References:
ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
-- Samuli Suominen
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
Next by thread:
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
Previous by date:
Re: Killing UEFI Secure Boot
Next by date:
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.