1 |
On 06/03/2012 06:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
2 |
> On 06/03/2012 03:01 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
3 |
>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>>> On 05/29/2012 10:09 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
6 |
>>> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_920c6d6daafe7702bfa3b8a2bc21e0c1.xml |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>>>> Can you indicate what the council has to vote on/decide for this one? |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>>> EAPI=5 |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>>> optional: "$@" placement in default for src_configure() |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>>> econf "$@" |
16 |
>> |
17 |
>>> optional: "$@" placement in default for src_compile() |
18 |
>> |
19 |
>>> emake "$@" |
20 |
>> |
21 |
>> I still don't see the point of it. econf or emake could just be called |
22 |
>> directly. We won't gain anything by allowing arguments, but only |
23 |
>> complicate things. |
24 |
>> |
25 |
>>> this one is what I'm really after for: |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>>> default for src_install() in EAPI=5 should accept "$@" in correct place |
28 |
>>> to avoid usage of EXTRA_EMAKE within ebuilds/eclasses and to avoid |
29 |
>>> duplicating the Portage code for DOCS. |
30 |
>>> NOTE: When this was last voted on for EAPI=3, we didn't have this DOCS |
31 |
>>> handling, and this wasn't important yet. |
32 |
>> |
33 |
>>> emake DESTDIR="${D}" "$@" install |
34 |
>> |
35 |
>> Again, this could be called directly, which has the advantage that it |
36 |
>> makes it obvious that src_install isn't the default. |
37 |
> |
38 |
> The difference is working the tree when you have to alter ebuilds which |
39 |
> have been written like: |
40 |
> |
41 |
> DOCS=( AUTHORS README.NOW "${FILESDIR}"/README.Gentoo ) |
42 |
> |
43 |
> src_install() { |
44 |
> default |
45 |
> |
46 |
> echo "Some command here." |
47 |
> } |
48 |
> |
49 |
> At this point you have to move content of DOCS which may or may not rely |
50 |
> on the ""quoting with array"". Remove the call to default. And then |
51 |
> duplicate the EAPI=4 default into the ebuild. |
52 |
> |
53 |
> And then replicate that every month dozen times and keep on doing it for |
54 |
> some months. Get frustrated. |
55 |
> |
56 |
> If that's not enough, then you get all excited about EAPI=4 and finally |
57 |
> think you have a replacement for base.eclass to port xfconf.eclass away |
58 |
> from the thing when you only used it for default src_install() to avoid |
59 |
> code duplication... |
60 |
> |
61 |
> Think you are all done, and then get complainment that support for extra |
62 |
> arguments for xfconf_src_install was killed, and was required for things |
63 |
> like: |
64 |
> |
65 |
> xfconf_src_install htmldirectory=/usr/share/doc/${PF}/html |
66 |
> imagesdir=/usr/share/doc/${PF}/html/images |
67 |
> |
68 |
> Where sedding the build system runs maintainer mode at .in level, and |
69 |
> runnning autotools (.am level) requires heavy documentation dependencies. |
70 |
> You go back to base.eclass and get frustrated more. |
71 |
> |
72 |
> I hope that clears things up ;-) |
73 |
> |
74 |
|
75 |
Also, if not implemented, what is the replacement for EXTRA_EMAKE which |
76 |
we are allowed to use from ebuilds? Or are we allowed to use it? I think |
77 |
PMS didn't forbid it the last time I checked and it has consumers in |
78 |
tree already. |
79 |
|
80 |
And if not implemented, would the council please vote on banning the |
81 |
usage of `default` in src_install() directly from ebuilds? The syntax |
82 |
back and forth converting MUST stop. |
83 |
|
84 |
- Samuli |