| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:41:32 -0700 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 04/18/2012 11:34 AM, David Leverton wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Zac Medico wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> Also, maybe apply_user_patches_here should have a special return |
| 7 |
> >> value if there are no patches to be applied? That way, src_prepare |
| 8 |
> >> can avoid an eautoreconf call if there are no patches. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Does that imply that every ebuild for an autotools-based package |
| 11 |
> > would be expected to have an "apply_user_patches_here && |
| 12 |
> > eautoreconf" line, just in case the user might want to add custom |
| 13 |
> > patches? It could be exported by autotools.eclass, but even so, |
| 14 |
> > requiring every autotools ebuild to inherit the eclass even if it |
| 15 |
> > doesn't have any effect by default seems a bit unfortunate. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Isn't that just a consequence of how autotools works? Do you have a |
| 18 |
> better alternative? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
And it implies autotools on every, even very simple patch. |
| 21 |
autotools-utils does that much better but everyone likes reinventing |
| 22 |
wheels. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Best regards, |
| 26 |
Michał Górny |
Archives