| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
At Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:38:57 -0400, |
| 4 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> oooooooooh and stop trying to run the `patch` cmd yourself ... |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Agreed ;-) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> no one is cooler than `epatch` (which is integrated into portage now, so dont |
| 11 |
> 'inherit eutils'), so stop trying to think you ppl are |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'm afraid we should add 'inherit eutils' because though epatch is now |
| 14 |
integrated into unstable version of portage, stable version of portage |
| 15 |
(2.0.48-r5) doesn't have this functionality. I came across the |
| 16 |
problem in http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=23131#c11 and found |
| 17 |
we need 'inherit eutils' for stable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Anyhow, some of the ebuilds seem to use epatch without 'inherit |
| 20 |
eutils' (and I guess they will fail to compile properly). I counted |
| 21 |
that sort of ebuild using small sh script and it says 332 ebuilds use |
| 22 |
epatch without declairing 'inherit eutlis' ;-( Well, I included both |
| 23 |
stable and unstable ebuilds, but at least for stable we need to write |
| 24 |
'inherit epatch' at this moment. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
cf. here is the list of such ebuilds: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~usata/ebuild_wepatch_woeutils.txt |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Mamoru KOMACHI <usata@g.o> |
| 32 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~usata/ |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives