Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Guilherme Amadio <amadio@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: base-system <base-system@g.o>, Julian Ospald <hasufell@g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Allow to configure base patch location for epatch_user
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2015 16:14:49
Message-Id: 20150905161447.GA1955@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: Allow to configure base patch location for epatch_user by Ulrich Mueller
1 On Sat, Sep 05, 2015 at 02:42:15PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
2 > >>>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
3 >
4 > > I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency
5 > > can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doesn't
6 > > change when this moves into the package manager for EAPI6?
7 >
8 > So far, the EAPI 6 draft says [1]:
9 >
10 > eapply_user
11 > Takes no arguments. Package managers supporting it apply
12 > user-provided patches to the source tree in the current working
13 > directory. Exact behaviour is implementation defined and beyond
14 > the scope of this specification. Package managers not supporting
15 > it must implement the function as a no-op. Only available in
16 > EAPIs listed in table [...] as supporting eapply_user.
17
18 Is there a reason to pick eapply_user rather than epatch_user? I think
19 the second one would fit better with what we already have.
20 Alternatively, if we would like to avoid adding a new function, it could
21 be something like epatch --user or epatch -d $DIRECTORY_WITH_PATCHES,
22 where $DIRECTORY_WITH_PATCHES either defaults to something like
23 $EPATCH_SOURCE_USER, or can be specified via package.env. This takes the
24 burden away from the package manager for where to put patches, and lets
25 the user make that choice.
26
27 Cheers,
28 —Guilherme

Replies