| 1 |
Dnia 2015-10-17, o godz. 08:38:51 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 8:25 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On 10/17/2015 02:19 PM, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote: |
| 6 |
> >> |
| 7 |
> >> The other question is more critical -- could you merge eapply and |
| 8 |
> >> eapply_user? Or add some hook to PMS so that eapply_user isn't needed? |
| 9 |
> >> IOW, it'd be nice if every package was, by default, patchable by the user. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > IMO, eapply_user should not be in the eclass and not in PMS. patches are |
| 13 |
> > something that can easily be done via PM hooks, if the PM has proper |
| 14 |
> > hooks support. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The reason this was done was to give maintainers more control over |
| 18 |
> WHEN patches are applied, while still ensuring they are applyied. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> The other feature that is supposed to be in EAPI6 (I didn't read the |
| 21 |
> draft yet) is that the PM should refuse to install the package if |
| 22 |
> eapply is never called (ie src_prepare is overridden and the ebuild |
| 23 |
> didn't call eapply). It is required that all ebuilds call it once |
| 24 |
> unconditionally. That way users don't get inconsistent behavior from |
| 25 |
> package to package and be dependent on maintainers to fix it. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> We'd have to dig through the archives, but I'm sure there was |
| 28 |
> extensive discussion about whether this belonged in the PM or PMS. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I don't think this was really accepted. I think the best we can do is |
| 31 |
make repoman complain about it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Michał Górny |
| 36 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives