Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 16:19:57
Message-Id: 4FA7F61C.2080908@orlitzky.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches (was: EAPI 5 development branch) by Ulrich Mueller
1 On 05/07/12 11:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
2 >
3 > After all, this functionality is just a stop-gap measure for users to
4 > apply quick bug fixes, so I don't expect that it will be used very
5 > often. Even fewer cases will require that eautoreconf is called. Do we
6 > really want to force developers to put this function call into every
7 > ebuild? That would be out of proportion, IMHO.
8
9 Only the ebuilds that override src_prepare (which is a lot).
10
11 The argument on -dev was that we could get 80% of the benefit for 0% of
12 the effort by just ignoring the issue. There's a trade-off, but 80%
13 isn't all that great (considering of course that all of these numbers
14 are made up).
15
16 Can that be increased to, say, 99% without any extra effort?
17
18 Are there easy heuristics to determine whether or not user patches
19 require eautoreconf? For example, if the patches fail at the beginning
20 of src_prepare, and the ebuild calls eautoreconf, that's a good
21 indication that we should call eautoreconf after the user patches are
22 applied (at the end of src_prepare).
23
24 Lacking a better way, though, I think requiring the developer to apply
25 the patches in the right spot is the only way to ensure correctness.

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>