| 1 |
On 09/05/2015 02:42 PM, 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 |
>> PMS is more about the content of the ebuilds, so presumably all |
| 19 |
>> package managers could structure how patches are provided by the |
| 20 |
>> user in whatefver way is most consistent with how they already |
| 21 |
>> operate. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Exactly, IMHO we should leave the details how this is implemented |
| 24 |
> to the package manager (including the option not to implement it). |
| 25 |
> This is of course open for discussion. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Right, I don't even see a reason to make the patch location configurable |
| 29 |
once it is implemented in package managers. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
This is really just about eutils.eclass. |
Archives