1 |
2011/9/7 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>: |
2 |
>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> Start collecting ideas for EAPI5. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> I suggest that EAPI 5 should include the two features that have been |
7 |
> omitted from EAPI 4 [1,2]. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> Apart from this, I think we should be more careful for the next EAPI, |
10 |
> in order to avoid such long delays as we had with EAPI 4. One possible |
11 |
> solution would be to only accept features where a preliminary |
12 |
> implementation in Portage is available. |
13 |
Agreed the wait last time was really bad. |
14 |
> |
15 |
>> I myself would like PATCHES array to be default in src_prepare phase |
16 |
>> and some solution for runtime optional deps, Instead of elog in |
17 |
>> postinst something like Recommended from rpm. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Looks reasonable (if an implementation is ready). Although I don't |
20 |
> understand how it is related to rpm. |
21 |
|
22 |
Well the patches code is in base eclass. |
23 |
|
24 |
For Recommended it works like this: |
25 |
blabla.spec |
26 |
Recommended: xf86-video-ati |
27 |
|
28 |
zypper in blabla |
29 |
... |
30 |
You might consider installing these additional packages: |
31 |
xf86-video-ati |
32 |
|
33 |
|
34 |
It for sure needs more thinking as this is just basic idea. It might |
35 |
even take into account that if you install the recommended patckage |
36 |
with oneshot it should not be depcleaned unless all recommending |
37 |
packages are gone too, and so on. |