| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Simon Stelling wrote: |
| 5 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
| 6 |
>> Well, if the metadata generation step is viewed as being separate from the rest, |
| 7 |
>> and the helpers aren't needed during that step, then it's possible to get the |
| 8 |
>> EAPI from the ebuild without the helpers being in the environment. Once the |
| 9 |
>> EAPI is known, the package manager can use that to determine what else (if |
| 10 |
>> anthing) needs to be added to the environment. Then you'd only need a way to |
| 11 |
>> tell the package manager which EAPI levels the functions in your |
| 12 |
>> install-helpers.eclass (or whatever) apply to. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> That is a workaround, but it makes a pretty hard link between the |
| 15 |
> package manager and the functions, which is exactly what I am trying to |
| 16 |
> cut through with the patch. Sure, it'd be a workaround, but just keeping |
| 17 |
> them in the portage package until EAPI=1 is reached is one too... |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
It's not intended as a workaround and it shouldn't create a hard link between |
| 20 |
the package manager and the functions. The idea is that the tree should provide |
| 21 |
the necessary information for the package manager (portage or not) to determine |
| 22 |
how it should setup the environment for a given EAPI. The file containing the |
| 23 |
functions from install-helpers.eclass would have to be labeled in some way such |
| 24 |
that any package manager would know that those functions are required when |
| 25 |
EAPI=0 (and possible other EAPI levels). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
>>>> So, the correct way to do it is to define an EAPI=1 that does no longer |
| 28 |
>>>> include these helper functions and make the eclasses/ebuilds that use it |
| 29 |
>>>> inherit the eclass manually. However, this will need to run through -dev |
| 30 |
>>>> and I'm afraid the ebuild devs wouldn't like it at all :-/ |
| 31 |
>> They won't like it because it's expected that EAPI will provide the necessary |
| 32 |
>> information. Why should they have to inherit some special eclass if it's |
| 33 |
>> already implied by the EAPI that they've specified? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> It wouldn't be implied anymore. The install-helpers.eclass would |
| 36 |
> actually be like every other eclass, like eutils fex. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Fine, but the EAPI can still be used to imply that some other functions may or |
| 39 |
may not be available. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
> Actually, the reason they won't like it for will more likely be that it |
| 42 |
> requires adding another eclass to the inherit line for ~15'000 ebuilds. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
See, that statement shows me that you've missed my point that EAPI can be used |
| 45 |
to imply which functions are implicitly available. It would be redundant to |
| 46 |
inherit an eclass containing functions that are already implied by the EAPI. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
Zac |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 51 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
iD8DBQFFAFVc/ejvha5XGaMRAoKBAKDPB+W/e1BVL11NJYWX3NlRdizJUwCfYI4l |
| 54 |
dPKQMsEBZbs8qkBQBTeUVJU= |
| 55 |
=1IQL |
| 56 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 57 |
-- |
| 58 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives