1 |
On 03/07/2010 11:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Sunday 07 March 2010 14:08:29 Petteri Räty wrote: |
3 |
>> On 03/07/2010 08:36 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Sunday 07 March 2010 13:31:56 Petteri Räty wrote: |
5 |
>>>> On 03/07/2010 07:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
6 |
>>>>> On Saturday 06 March 2010 02:11:15 Petteri Räty wrote: |
7 |
>>>>>> On 03/05/2010 08:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
8 |
>>>>>>> sometimes i have optional patches (ignoring the "patches should |
9 |
>>>>>>> always be applied") where autotools should be run. always |
10 |
>>>>>>> inheriting autotools is currently annoying because it always adds |
11 |
>>>>>>> the related dependencies. USE based inherits are obviously out. |
12 |
>>>>>>> |
13 |
>>>>>>> so unless there's some burgeoning standard i'm not aware of, below is |
14 |
>>>>>>> what i have in mind. packages set AUTOTOOLS_AUTO_DEPEND to "no" |
15 |
>>>>>>> before inheriting autotools.eclass and that allows them to put |
16 |
>>>>>>> ${AUTOTOOLS_DEPEND} behind a USE flag in their own DEPEND string. |
17 |
>>>>>> |
18 |
>>>>>> What we use in Java is JAVA_PKG_OPT_USE to declare what use flag the |
19 |
>>>>>> DEPENDs should be under. This approach doesn't allow the ebuild |
20 |
>>>>>> maintainer to forget adding the depends. |
21 |
>>>>> |
22 |
>>>>> i'm more inclined towards Jonathan's opinion, so ive kept the proposed |
23 |
>>>>> behavior (plus a fix from Torsten). |
24 |
>>>> |
25 |
>>>> And what about my latest response to him? |
26 |
>>> |
27 |
>>> considering your proposal saves ${FOO} in DEPEND, it hasnt changed my |
28 |
>>> opinion |
29 |
>> |
30 |
>> Why would it be better to require ebuild writers to have do it |
31 |
>> themselves instead of the eclass automatically taking care of it? |
32 |
> |
33 |
> as Jonathan mentioned, it gives explicit control via multiple USE flags which |
34 |
> your way does not |
35 |
> -mike |
36 |
|
37 |
I already said both can be implemented. |
38 |
|
39 |
Regards, |
40 |
Petteri |