| 1 |
On 04/25/2012 09:44 PM, Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 22:41:39 +0100 |
| 3 |
> David Leverton <levertond@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> The point I was trying to get at was that it seems a bit heavyweight to |
| 6 |
>> rely on a whole eclass for a minor use-case, as well as a bit |
| 7 |
>> error-prone to expect people to remember it every time, but maybe that's |
| 8 |
>> the least bad option after all.... |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Yeah the whole idea here was to make user patches available without ebuild |
| 11 |
> modifications or eclass dependence. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Using the "apply_user_patches_here" approach [1] that Ciaran suggested, |
| 14 |
the ebuild wouldn't need any modification unless it overrides |
| 15 |
default_src_prepare. There is not necessarily any "eclass dependence", |
| 16 |
though the ebuild may call eclass functions such as eautoreconf when |
| 17 |
necessary. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
[1] |
| 20 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c228be85e0c4e577ad194e6004d59062.xml |
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Thanks, |
| 23 |
Zac |
Archives