| 1 |
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:43:37 -0700 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 04/26/2012 11:27 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 06:18:32 +0000 (UTC) |
| 6 |
> > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> >> My suggestion is therefore to do the simple thing, just apply any |
| 9 |
> >> patches found in the patches dir, and punt on the complicated |
| 10 |
> >> do-we-eautoreconf- or-not thing. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Agreed. Just make sure the feature will be only used for ebuilds not |
| 13 |
> > calling epatch_user manually or through the eclass. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> So the package manager is supposed to interact with an eclass |
| 16 |
> function? That's pretty ugly. Why not just roll out a quick EAPI 5 |
| 17 |
> that adds support for the "apply_user_patches_here" approach [1]? |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_c228be85e0c4e577ad194e6004d59062.xml |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
1) Because it's ugly hack, |
| 22 |
2) it will have to interact with epatch_user anyway (at least to avoid |
| 23 |
applying patches twice), |
| 24 |
3) it will work only for new/modified ebuilds so won't differ at all |
| 25 |
from using epatch_user(). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Best regards, |
| 29 |
Michał Górny |
Archives