| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency |
| 4 |
> can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doesn't |
| 5 |
> change when this moves into the package manager for EAPI6? |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
So far, the EAPI 6 draft says [1]: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
eapply_user |
| 10 |
Takes no arguments. Package managers supporting it apply |
| 11 |
user-provided patches to the source tree in the current working |
| 12 |
directory. Exact behaviour is implementation defined and beyond |
| 13 |
the scope of this specification. Package managers not supporting |
| 14 |
it must implement the function as a no-op. Only available in |
| 15 |
EAPIs listed in table [...] as supporting eapply_user. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> PMS is more about the content of the ebuilds, so presumably all |
| 18 |
> package managers could structure how patches are provided by the |
| 19 |
> user in whatefver way is most consistent with how they already |
| 20 |
> operate. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Exactly, IMHO we should leave the details how this is implemented |
| 23 |
to the package manager (including the option not to implement it). |
| 24 |
This is of course open for discussion. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Ulrich |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
[1] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/pms.git/diff/pkg-mgr-commands.tex?h=eapi-6&id=c82042d29a03defbb639050e5b3d265f74cbbee6 |
Archives