| 1 |
On 2014-04-11 09:02, Ralph Sennhauser wrote: |
| 2 |
> java-utils-2 does it like that since before PMS, since around the time |
| 3 |
> Portage gained support for EAPIs. PMS leaves it open whether using |
| 4 |
> DESTREE in pkg_setup is allowed or not. Neither Portage, Paludis nor |
| 5 |
> earlier version of Pkgcore did mind this use. Well, one could argue |
| 6 |
> that using DESTREE in pkg_setup is allowed. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Pkgcore explicitly worked around it for a long time (since 0.2.12-ish) |
| 9 |
specifically noting it was for this case until I dropped it recently |
| 10 |
since keeping targeted hacks around for things like this isn't great for |
| 11 |
maintainability. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> I would welcome PMS clearly defining the scope of DESTREE and the most |
| 14 |
> logical choice of course would be src_install only where it is |
| 15 |
> currently explicitly required. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Yep, as Ulrich noted (and I noted in the 2nd paragraph of my first |
| 18 |
message) PMS already defines the scope of DESTTREE to be src_install |
| 19 |
only. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> If we fix java-utils-2 we should fix PMS as well. After all, |
| 22 |
> java-utils-2 is a prime suspect for the different handling of |
| 23 |
> DESTREE and for instance INSDESTREE in PMS. This asymmetry is why I |
| 24 |
> didn't touch java-utils-2 when I looked into exactly this usage of |
| 25 |
> DESTREE 2+ years ago. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Just to note, I already committed the fix a few days ago after |
| 28 |
discussing it a bit on the java herd IRC channel. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Really it would be great if someone was interested in reworking most of |
| 31 |
the java eclasses since they've been showing their age for a while now. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Thanks, |
| 34 |
Tim |
Archives