| 1 |
2011/9/7 Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>: |
| 2 |
>>>>>> On Wed, 7 Sep 2011, Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Start collecting ideas for EAPI5. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I suggest that EAPI 5 should include the two features that have been |
| 7 |
> omitted from EAPI 4 [1,2]. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Apart from this, I think we should be more careful for the next EAPI, |
| 10 |
> in order to avoid such long delays as we had with EAPI 4. One possible |
| 11 |
> solution would be to only accept features where a preliminary |
| 12 |
> implementation in Portage is available. |
| 13 |
Agreed the wait last time was really bad. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
>> I myself would like PATCHES array to be default in src_prepare phase |
| 16 |
>> and some solution for runtime optional deps, Instead of elog in |
| 17 |
>> postinst something like Recommended from rpm. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Looks reasonable (if an implementation is ready). Although I don't |
| 20 |
> understand how it is related to rpm. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Well the patches code is in base eclass. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
For Recommended it works like this: |
| 25 |
blabla.spec |
| 26 |
Recommended: xf86-video-ati |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
zypper in blabla |
| 29 |
... |
| 30 |
You might consider installing these additional packages: |
| 31 |
xf86-video-ati |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
It for sure needs more thinking as this is just basic idea. It might |
| 35 |
even take into account that if you install the recommended patckage |
| 36 |
with oneshot it should not be depcleaned unless all recommending |
| 37 |
packages are gone too, and so on. |
Archives