Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: "Jason A. Donenfeld" <zx2c4@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o, gentoo-dev@l.g.o, "Ulrich Müller" <ulm@g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-pms] Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-dev-announce] EAPI 6 draft for review
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 2015 12:24:38
1 Dnia 2015-10-17, o godz. 14:19:15
2 "Jason A. Donenfeld" <zx2c4@g.o> napisał(a):
4 > Hey Ulrich,
5 >
6 > I may be a bit late to the discussion, and perhaps I should really just be
7 > reviewing mailing list posts from years past, but...
8 >
9 > What's the story of eapply? Why does this need to go into the PMS, and not
10 > continue to be supplied by epatch from the eclass? What is gained from
11 > moving it to PMS, and why is it more semantically correct to have it there?
12 > Just curious about this.
14 There are two reasons:
16 1. patching is quite common. The idea behind part of my additions for
17 EAPI 6 was to add really common and reusable things, so they wouldn't
18 have to be carried over in eclasses forever. Having eapply in EAPI 6
19 means a fair number of ebuilds will not have to inherit huge eutils.
21 2. eapply_user really belongs in the PM, especially if it's run by
22 default. And it needs patch applying function. And if we have to
23 implement patch applying function anyway, we may as well make it public
24 to avoid unnecessary duplication.
26 --
27 Best regards,
28 Michał Górny
29 <>