| 1 |
On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 8:46 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/05/2015 02:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: |
| 3 |
>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>>> I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency |
| 6 |
>>> can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doesn't |
| 7 |
>>> change when this moves into the package manager for EAPI6? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> So far, the EAPI 6 draft says [1]: |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> eapply_user |
| 12 |
>> Takes no arguments. Package managers supporting it apply |
| 13 |
>> user-provided patches to the source tree in the current working |
| 14 |
>> directory. Exact behaviour is implementation defined and beyond |
| 15 |
>> the scope of this specification. Package managers not supporting |
| 16 |
>> it must implement the function as a no-op. Only available in |
| 17 |
>> EAPIs listed in table [...] as supporting eapply_user. |
| 18 |
>> |
| 19 |
>>> PMS is more about the content of the ebuilds, so presumably all |
| 20 |
>>> package managers could structure how patches are provided by the |
| 21 |
>>> user in whatefver way is most consistent with how they already |
| 22 |
>>> operate. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> Exactly, IMHO we should leave the details how this is implemented |
| 25 |
>> to the package manager (including the option not to implement it). |
| 26 |
>> This is of course open for discussion. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Right, I don't even see a reason to make the patch location configurable |
| 30 |
> once it is implemented in package managers. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> This is really just about eutils.eclass. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
I wasn't suggesting that the configuration of the path be made a part of PMS. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
I was suggesting that somebody talk to the portage developers about |
| 38 |
how they intend to implement EAPI6 so that users don't have to go into |
| 39 |
their make.conf and change EPATCH_USER_SOURCE to EAPPY_USER_SOURCE or |
| 40 |
something silly like that, or more likely define both since pre-6 |
| 41 |
ebuilds will use one setting and post-6 ebuilds will use the other. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
I do realize that there is no technical constraint that forces us to |
| 44 |
be nice to our users. It's just good manners. :) |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
(And I do realize that portage isn't the only package manager out |
| 47 |
there. By all means try to do this in a way that is easiest on users |
| 48 |
of all of them.) |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Rich |
Archives