Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o>
To: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:08:56
Message-Id: 20151017220838.0ae4973f@gentoo.org
1 On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:42:20 +0200
2 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > [Resending since my first message didn't make it to -dev-announce.]
5 >
6 > The first draft of EAPI 6 is ready. I shall post it as a series of
7 > 22 patches following this message in the gentoo-pms mailing list.
8 >
9 > Please review. The goal is to have the draft ready for approval in the
10 > council's November meeting.
11
12 Sorry for coming very late on this, but what is the rationale behind
13 setting in stone an 'eapply' different to an 'epatch' that has been
14 widely tested for decades now ? Or even defining eapply in PMS ?
15
16 I can understand "eapply is a function that applies patches" isn't nice
17 for a spec., but we've already seen in the past gnu patch changing
18 behavior wrt what is an acceptable patch between versions, bsd 'patch'
19 command behaves slightly differently than gnu patch (read: is unusable
20 with epatch), etc.
21 One can argue that gnu patch changing behavior is part of life, but
22 what worries me more is the BSDs: e.g. on gfbsd, 'patch' is bsd patch,
23 'gpatch' is gnu patch; we use profile.bashrc to alias patch to gpatch
24 for ebuilds, but I don't think profile.bashrc should mess up with what
25 is mandated by PMS.
26
27
28 Also, mandating -p1 seems quite limiting: e.g. 'svn diff -rX:Y' extracts
29 -p0 patches by default here. Or when $S is actually a subdir of a
30 repository, this will make standard git format-patch generated patches
31 unusable.
32
33
34 Alexis.

Replies