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 |