| 1 |
>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012, Samuli Suominen wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> On 05/29/2012 10:09 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 4 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_920c6d6daafe7702bfa3b8a2bc21e0c1.xml |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> Can you indicate what the council has to vote on/decide for this one? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> EAPI=5 |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> optional: "$@" placement in default for src_configure() |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> econf "$@" |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> optional: "$@" placement in default for src_compile() |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> emake "$@" |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I still don't see the point of it. econf or emake could just be called |
| 19 |
directly. We won't gain anything by allowing arguments, but only |
| 20 |
complicate things. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> this one is what I'm really after for: |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> default for src_install() in EAPI=5 should accept "$@" in correct place |
| 25 |
> to avoid usage of EXTRA_EMAKE within ebuilds/eclasses and to avoid |
| 26 |
> duplicating the Portage code for DOCS. |
| 27 |
> NOTE: When this was last voted on for EAPI=3, we didn't have this DOCS |
| 28 |
> handling, and this wasn't important yet. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
> emake DESTDIR="${D}" "$@" install |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Again, this could be called directly, which has the advantage that it |
| 33 |
makes it obvious that src_install isn't the default. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Ulrich |
Archives