| 1 |
On Mon, 07 May 2012 12:19:40 -0400 |
| 2 |
Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 05/07/12 11:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > After all, this functionality is just a stop-gap measure for users |
| 7 |
> > to apply quick bug fixes, so I don't expect that it will be used |
| 8 |
> > very often. Even fewer cases will require that eautoreconf is |
| 9 |
> > called. Do we really want to force developers to put this function |
| 10 |
> > call into every ebuild? That would be out of proportion, IMHO. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Only the ebuilds that override src_prepare (which is a lot). |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The reason for src_prepare() was to simplify ebuilds (so they don't |
| 15 |
have to override whole src_unpack()). Requiring a specific line in |
| 16 |
every src_prepare() call means going the other way. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> Can that be increased to, say, 99% without any extra effort? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Are there easy heuristics to determine whether or not user patches |
| 21 |
> require eautoreconf? For example, if the patches fail at the beginning |
| 22 |
> of src_prepare, and the ebuild calls eautoreconf, that's a good |
| 23 |
> indication that we should call eautoreconf after the user patches are |
| 24 |
> applied (at the end of src_prepare). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
That's an extra effort. And by making it overcomplex, you introduce yet |
| 27 |
another new corner cases. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Michał Górny |
Archives