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