Re: [gentoo-dev] ebuild laziness and binpkg overhead

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tuesday 19 June 2012 23:27:06 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 06/20/2012 06:19 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 19 June 2012 22:46:26 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >> On 06/15/2012 06:10 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Friday 15 June 2012 03:44:14 Samuli Suominen wrote:
> >>>> On 06/13/2012 06:02 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>>> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into
> >>>>> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't
> >>>>> have to call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass.
> >>>>> unfortunately this adds pointless overhead to binpkgs.  can we please
> >>>>> move away from this practice ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Every Xfce ebuild in gentoo-x86 is using pkg_setup() for 3 variables,
> >>>> DOCS for src_install, PATCHES for src_prepare
> >>>
> >>> these are static variables, so defining them in a func is pointless
> >>
> >> "sort of" not necessarily, 'has $useflag && PATCHES+=( )' has been used
> >> before, not sure if it's used in tree right now or not
> >
> > as we've always said, USE conditional patches are to be highly
> > discouraged
>
> I agree BUT there are cases where it's OK to use conditional patching:
>
> For example, libfoo-0.1.1 is broken and is fixed in git for master which
> will be in next release. The fix doesn't apply to 0.1.1 cleanly without
> heavy modifications.
> Then you would take the easiest possible route to get 0.1.1 working
> again, with the comfort of knowing it's properly fixed for the next
> version.

hypothetical situations are great and all, but how many of those apply to the 
ebuilds you're worried about ?  i'd wager most do not.  can we please fix the 
majority here ?  i'd be significantly less grumpy if we treated this as the 
exception instead of the rule.
-mike