On Mon, 07 May 2012 12:19:40 -0400
Michael Orlitzky <michael@...> wrote:

> 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 reason for src_prepare() was to simplify ebuilds (so they don't
have to override whole src_unpack()). Requiring a specific line in
every src_prepare() call means going the other way.

> 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).

That's an extra effort. And by making it overcomplex, you introduce yet
another new corner cases.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny