Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-pms@l.g.o, Gentoo Council <council@g.o>
Subject: [gentoo-pms] Re: [PATCH v2] EAPI 6: Specify return status for eapply_user.
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2015 11:24:20
1 >>>>> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015, Rich Freeman wrote:
3 > On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote:
4 >>
5 >> Also seems natural to return 0 in the most common case that there
6 >> are no user patches, and in the case that eapply_user() is a no-op.
8 > I think the no-op situation requires care.
10 By "no-op" I meant the case that the package manager would implement
11 the function as a no-op, which is allowed by the spec.
13 > The whole reason for having the no-op option is if it gets called in
14 > one or more eclasses and then in the ebuild itself.
16 > That would mean that it would become the responsibility of the
17 > eclass to re-autoconf the package if the patches apply. As long as
18 > this is done I'm fine with the approach. I suppose that makes
19 > sense, but I just want to make sure everybody is on the same page.
20 > Otherwise the patches apply in an eclass and then the ebuild gets
21 > the impression that no patches were applied.
23 That's a different situation, and I hope it will be taken care of by
24 the requirement that on subsequent calls to eapply_user the same
25 return status as before must be returned.
27 Ulrich