Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12

[Markos Chandras]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 06/03/2012 10:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 11:18 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512
>>
>> On 06/03/2012 04:26 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2012 06:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>> On 06/03/2012 03:01 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 05/29/2012 10:09 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>>>>> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_920c6d6daafe7702bfa3b8a2bc21e0c1.xml
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>>>
Can you indicate what the council has to vote on/decide for this one?
>>>>>
>>>>>> EAPI=5
>>>>>
>>>>>> optional: "$@" placement in default for src_configure()
>>>>>
>>>>>> econf "$@"
>>>>>
>>>>>> optional: "$@" placement in default for src_compile()
>>>>>
>>>>>> emake "$@"
>>>>>
>>>>> I still don't see the point of it. econf or emake could
>>>>> just be called directly. We won't gain anything by allowing
>>>>> arguments, but only complicate things.
>>>>>
>>>>>> this one is what I'm really after for:
>>>>>
>>>>>> default for src_install() in EAPI=5 should accept "$@"
>>>>>> in correct place to avoid usage of EXTRA_EMAKE within
>>>>>> ebuilds/eclasses and to avoid duplicating the Portage
>>>>>> code for DOCS. NOTE: When this was last voted on for
>>>>>> EAPI=3, we didn't have this DOCS handling, and this
>>>>>> wasn't important yet.
>>>>>
>>>>>> emake DESTDIR="${D}" "$@" install
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, this could be called directly, which has the
>>>>> advantage that it makes it obvious that src_install isn't
>>>>> the default.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is working the tree when you have to alter
>>>> ebuilds which have been written like:
>>>>
>>>> DOCS=( AUTHORS README.NOW "${FILESDIR}"/README.Gentoo )
>>>>
>>>> src_install() { default
>>>>
>>>> echo "Some command here." }
>>>>
>>>> At this point you have to move content of DOCS which may or
>>>> may not rely on the ""quoting with array"". Remove the call
>>>> to default. And then duplicate the EAPI=4 default into the
>>>> ebuild.
>>>>
>>>> And then replicate that every month dozen times and keep on
>>>> doing it for some months. Get frustrated.
>>>>
>>>> If that's not enough, then you get all excited about EAPI=4
>>>> and finally think you have a replacement for base.eclass to
>>>> port xfconf.eclass away from the thing when you only used it
>>>> for default src_install() to avoid code duplication...
>>>>
>>>> Think you are all done, and then get complainment that
>>>> support for extra arguments for xfconf_src_install was
>>>> killed, and was required for things like:
>>>>
>>>> xfconf_src_install htmldirectory=/usr/share/doc/${PF}/html
>>>> imagesdir=/usr/share/doc/${PF}/html/images
>>>>
>>>> Where sedding the build system runs maintainer mode at .in
>>>> level, and runnning autotools (.am level) requires heavy
>>>> documentation dependencies. You go back to base.eclass and
>>>> get frustrated more.
>>>>
>>>> I hope that clears things up ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Also, if not implemented, what is the replacement for
>>> EXTRA_EMAKE which we are allowed to use from ebuilds? Or are we
>>> allowed to use it? I think PMS didn't forbid it the last time I
>>> checked and it has consumers in tree already.
>>>
>>> And if not implemented, would the council please vote on
>>> banning the usage of `default` in src_install() directly from
>>> ebuilds? The syntax back and forth converting MUST stop.
>>>
>>> - Samuli
>>>
>> What is the problem with "default" in src_install?
>
> Did you not read the mail at all? The lack of support for
> arguments makes it useless, and even harmful/annoying when you have
> to convert them constantly around the tree
>
> -Samuli
>
You don't have to be offensive. Of course I've read it. My point is
that if you use "default" in src_install, you need the default
function for that EAPI. If you want to override it then implement your
own email <foo> <bar> install line. I just don't understand why you
want us to ban it. Personally I find it useful to call "default" from
src_install.

- -- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
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=Dnf1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----