| 1 |
Dnia 2015-10-17, o godz. 14:19:15 |
| 2 |
"Jason A. Donenfeld" <zx2c4@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Hey Ulrich, |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I may be a bit late to the discussion, and perhaps I should really just be |
| 7 |
> reviewing mailing list posts from years past, but... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> What's the story of eapply? Why does this need to go into the PMS, and not |
| 10 |
> continue to be supplied by epatch from the eclass? What is gained from |
| 11 |
> moving it to PMS, and why is it more semantically correct to have it there? |
| 12 |
> Just curious about this. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
There are two reasons: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
1. patching is quite common. The idea behind part of my additions for |
| 17 |
EAPI 6 was to add really common and reusable things, so they wouldn't |
| 18 |
have to be carried over in eclasses forever. Having eapply in EAPI 6 |
| 19 |
means a fair number of ebuilds will not have to inherit huge eutils. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
2. eapply_user really belongs in the PM, especially if it's run by |
| 22 |
default. And it needs patch applying function. And if we have to |
| 23 |
implement patch applying function anyway, we may as well make it public |
| 24 |
to avoid unnecessary duplication. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Michał Górny |
| 29 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/> |
Archives