Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal of accepting arguments to `default` in src_install (and more?) phases in EAPI=5 (for the next council meeting?)
Date: Sat, 12 May 2012 18:16:36
Message-Id: 4FAEA7FD.5020009@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal of accepting arguments to `default` in src_install (and more?) phases in EAPI=5 (for the next council meeting?) by "Michał Górny"
1 On 05/12/2012 09:09 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > On Sat, 12 May 2012 19:57:07 +0200
3 > Ulrich Mueller<ulm@g.o> wrote:
4 >
5 >>> The current workaround for this is to use EXTRA_EMAKE from ebuild,
6 >>> but I find this rather ugly (if not even forbidden by some PMS
7 >>> magic?)
8 >>
9 >> EXTRA_EMAKE isn't mentioned by the PMS. Do all package managers
10 >> support this variable? Portage does since 2004 at least.
11 >
12 > EXTRA_EMAKE isn't supposed to be mentioned there. It's an internal use
13 > variable for users who need to pass something specific to make.
14 >
15 >>> Can we make econf in src_configure, emake in src_compile, and emake
16 >>> install in src_install accept arguments "$@" in EAPI=5, please?
17 >>
18 >> I'd rather document EXTRA_EMAKE and EXTRA_ECONF in the spec, either
19 >> retroactively (in case all package managers support these variables
20 >> already), or for EAPI 5. It would accomplish the same as your
21 >> proposal, even without the need to add an explicit src_install
22 >> function.
23 >
24 > As above. Otherwise, we'll end up reimplementing just another variable
25 > to let users pass their custom arguments.
26 >
27
28 Yeah, I think we should keep these EXTRA_* for users only and have
29 something else for the ebuilds
30
31 (And I'm sure I don't remember wrong by saying some people have quite
32 passionately resisted using EXTRA_ECONF within an ebuild in the past for
33 this exact reasoning)
34
35 - Samuli