Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Petteri Räty" <betelgeuse@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] making autotools.eclass depends flexible
Date: Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:10:00
Message-Id: 4B93F9AD.9020907@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] making autotools.eclass depends flexible by Mike Frysinger
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

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] [rfc] making autotools.eclass depends flexible Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>