| 1 |
On Sunday 07 March 2010 13:31:56 Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/07/2010 07:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Saturday 06 March 2010 02:11:15 Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 03/05/2010 08:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> sometimes i have optional patches (ignoring the "patches should always |
| 6 |
> >>> be applied") where autotools should be run. always inheriting |
| 7 |
> >>> autotools is currently annoying because it always adds the related |
| 8 |
> >>> dependencies. USE based inherits are obviously out. |
| 9 |
> >>> |
| 10 |
> >>> so unless there's some burgeoning standard i'm not aware of, below is |
| 11 |
> >>> what i have in mind. packages set AUTOTOOLS_AUTO_DEPEND to "no" before |
| 12 |
> >>> inheriting autotools.eclass and that allows them to put |
| 13 |
> >>> ${AUTOTOOLS_DEPEND} behind a USE flag in their own DEPEND string. |
| 14 |
> >> |
| 15 |
> >> What we use in Java is JAVA_PKG_OPT_USE to declare what use flag the |
| 16 |
> >> DEPENDs should be under. This approach doesn't allow the ebuild |
| 17 |
> >> maintainer to forget adding the depends. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > i'm more inclined towards Jonathan's opinion, so ive kept the proposed |
| 20 |
> > behavior (plus a fix from Torsten). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> And what about my latest response to him? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
considering your proposal saves ${FOO} in DEPEND, it hasnt changed my opinion |
| 25 |
-mike |
Archives