Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-project
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-project: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-project@g.o
From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:18:09 +0100
-----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?

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

iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPyx3BAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCDU8P/0CAf/WNo/QXy4+sDWZ+yi1X
w3OYURV1MC31SvuzP2WLUruiMokDVe2n8h64yMG8F2/CCcPfBpKKF0mWZilx+F3O
+kDZLRBApf4sinuKLPkicGFaFQl21jYphTJPr6blaYf5VPZZp6/lgYR6Tj2R9a21
gj9evIg/GajZF+JBc3t/R7Ijw+W3DBvBokEmJ9RbPI05hvaAjFKK9tN1Sk2Hk/aq
ntKS1CDuD4JCQaJpSSvmKZZPotrddy/g0yTdfri8aol6hQXIfKxNoDW4DEwAMsAj
d1u92qi2Hwha3bK0OrruF5PTvGLdE7SSnQeM1dH+hASX35PXLqET4LE3j4DyCkJF
1ttlr9eTIqMSbqiYOZmxaDPJvmgIX8aWxKXnrRS+6jbua92xd7q2ZPdWFBVqSOuH
srSwNiJg3pAAgKy5IiJNfWP+TyAgSfZ9gqmJ8uX4MK56iIDT7JWBZ8nY+YPLdx4w
vOmsV90Yi20L7NsSP14Dlw1o1AHkoUWQdKC7jqRhYwuGnZ3VENNBMiOZ/G8ro6eY
1x3QoXlDCITKofU84F1Tot4yoztWdq/ry/sic29xQ8lJwiH6W8NRV+T7OcFsiPD2
ARoSnIhnDpEbOk8heg1CELTZyKXeZFKaqGdl1I/Sljv5Ai9iKslBOn8OjW5yiK2i
Cer7XXMkcBNjiw3aqSxC
=tpLH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Replies:
Re: Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12
-- Samuli Suominen
References:
Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12
-- Samuli Suominen
Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12
-- Ulrich Mueller
Re: Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12
-- Samuli Suominen
Re: Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12
-- Samuli Suominen
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-project: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12
Previous by date:
Re: Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12
Next by date:
Re: Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12


Updated Jul 05, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-project mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.