On 04/26/2012 02:55 AM, Duncan wrote:
> Zac Medico posted on Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:26:24 -0700 as excerpted:
>> On 04/25/2012 11:18 PM, Duncan wrote:
>>> IOW, let's quit letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, and just
>>> get on with it, already.
>> If that means settling on something that's fragile and prone to lots of
>> bug reports, then it's not really practical, because it wastes peoples
>> time (and time is our most valuable resource).
> IMO it's trying to do too much with it that's the fragile bit. If all it
> does is the patching, but it /always/ does the patching (unlike the hit-
> and-miss we get now), and people know they need to use the overlay-ebuild
> method to do anything beyond patching, including if they need to re-
> invoke eautoreconf, then it should "just work". Right now we're talking
> about all this fancy stuff, detecting when we need to automatically run
> eautoreconf, etc, and /that/ seems to me to be the fragile bit.
Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. If we ignore the problem,
then we end up dealing with bug reports of the form "FEATURES=userpatch
doesn't work with this particular patch set" until the end of time.
Also, don't forget to consider the possibility of interference between
FEATURES=userpatch and epatch_user (applying same patches twice).
Overall, the "apply_user_patches_here" approach  seems pretty
reasonable to me.