Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
Subject: Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 07:18:27 +0300
On 06/20/2012 06:46 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM, Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote:
>> On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
>>>>>>> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't
>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>> to call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass.
>>>>>>> unfortunately this adds pointless overhead to binpkgs.  can we please
>>>>>>> move away from this practice ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3 variables,
>>>>>> DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> these are static variables, so defining them in a func is pointless
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "sort of" not necessarily, 'has $useflag && PATCHES+=( )' has been used
>>>> before, not sure if it's used in tree right now or not
>>>
>>>
>>> as we've always said, USE conditional patches are to be highly discouraged
>>
>>
>> I agree BUT there are cases where it's OK to use conditional patching:
>>
>> For example, libfoo-0.1.1 is broken and is fixed in git for master which
>> will be in next release. The fix doesn't apply to 0.1.1 cleanly without
>> heavy modifications.
>> Then you would take the easiest possible route to get 0.1.1 working again,
>> with the comfort of knowing it's properly fixed for the next version.
>>
>> -Samuli
>>
>
> I assume you mean libfoo-0.1.1 is broken when USE=bar is enabled and
> you get a patch for that conditional case when USE=bar is enabled.

Right. Of course.

> Either way, the better solution is to mask it and have people use libfoo-0.1.0
>

Doesn't really apply to this case:
Think about masking stable Xfce 4.10 when the fix is in git that will be 
released as 4.12 in about year. ;-)

- Samuli


References:
ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
-- Samuli Suominen
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
-- Doug Goldstein
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
Next by thread:
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
Previous by date:
Re: ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead
Next by date:
Re: Re: spec draft for cross-compile support in future EAPI (EAPI-5)


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.