| 1 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> Well, if the metadata generation step is viewed as being separate from the rest, |
| 3 |
> and the helpers aren't needed during that step, then it's possible to get the |
| 4 |
> EAPI from the ebuild without the helpers being in the environment. Once the |
| 5 |
> EAPI is known, the package manager can use that to determine what else (if |
| 6 |
> anthing) needs to be added to the environment. Then you'd only need a way to |
| 7 |
> tell the package manager which EAPI levels the functions in your |
| 8 |
> install-helpers.eclass (or whatever) apply to. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
That is a workaround, but it makes a pretty hard link between the |
| 11 |
package manager and the functions, which is exactly what I am trying to |
| 12 |
cut through with the patch. Sure, it'd be a workaround, but just keeping |
| 13 |
them in the portage package until EAPI=1 is reached is one too... |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
>>> So, the correct way to do it is to define an EAPI=1 that does no longer |
| 16 |
>>> include these helper functions and make the eclasses/ebuilds that use it |
| 17 |
>>> inherit the eclass manually. However, this will need to run through -dev |
| 18 |
>>> and I'm afraid the ebuild devs wouldn't like it at all :-/ |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> They won't like it because it's expected that EAPI will provide the necessary |
| 21 |
> information. Why should they have to inherit some special eclass if it's |
| 22 |
> already implied by the EAPI that they've specified? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
It wouldn't be implied anymore. The install-helpers.eclass would |
| 25 |
actually be like every other eclass, like eutils fex. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Actually, the reason they won't like it for will more likely be that it |
| 28 |
requires adding another eclass to the inherit line for ~15'000 ebuilds. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Kind Regards, |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Simon Stelling |
| 34 |
Gentoo/AMD64 developer |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives