List Archive: gentoo-pms
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On 05/07/12 11:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> After all, this functionality is just a stop-gap measure for users to
> apply quick bug fixes, so I don't expect that it will be used very
> often. Even fewer cases will require that eautoreconf is called. Do we
> really want to force developers to put this function call into every
> ebuild? That would be out of proportion, IMHO.
Only the ebuilds that override src_prepare (which is a lot).
The argument on -dev was that we could get 80% of the benefit for 0% of
the effort by just ignoring the issue. There's a trade-off, but 80%
isn't all that great (considering of course that all of these numbers
are made up).
Can that be increased to, say, 99% without any extra effort?
Are there easy heuristics to determine whether or not user patches
require eautoreconf? For example, if the patches fail at the beginning
of src_prepare, and the ebuild calls eautoreconf, that's a good
indication that we should call eautoreconf after the user patches are
applied (at the end of src_prepare).
Lacking a better way, though, I think requiring the developer to apply
the patches in the right spot is the only way to ensure correctness.