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