| 1 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> The specification is really the most important part, and you have to |
| 4 |
> give the -dev community an opportunity to participate in refining |
| 5 |
> the spec (via RFC email, GLEP, or whatnot). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> It seems like this idea will probably serve for bug 179800, which is |
| 8 |
> about allowing eclasses to register phase hooks: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179800 |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
Hmm given that this relies on profile.bashrc, in specification terms one |
| 13 |
would have to ensure that http://bugs.gentoo.org/202631 (which was recently |
| 14 |
raised in #-council) were resolved. The sunrise people raised being able to |
| 15 |
tweak bashrc per-overlay in #-portage recently, and the phase hooks were |
| 16 |
also raised by javaJake wrt having directory-based hooks. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
As outlined at: |
| 19 |
http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-portage-dev%40lists.gentoo.org/msg00544.html |
| 20 |
..the phase hooks can all be done via bashrc; pre- and post-pkg need mangler |
| 21 |
support, if they cannot reasonably be implemented via existing hooks. |
| 22 |
(There were others, that seemed more appropriately handled in a wrapper, |
| 23 |
imo. Pre- and post- the whole process iirc.) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
OFC for that to happen, the spec needs to acknowledge that bashrc's exist so |
| 26 |
that downstream can use them in overlays, irrespective of the user's choice |
| 27 |
of package-mangler. |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
Archives