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 |