| 1 |
On Mon, 7 May 2012 20:16:30 +0200 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Also, if we add the feature to EAPI 5, we won't get anything close to |
| 4 |
> 100% coverage for a very long time. (Looking at usage statistics, EAPI |
| 5 |
> 2 was introduced almost 4 years ago, and about 30% of the tree are |
| 6 |
> still at EAPI 0 or 1.) |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Doesn't matter. The point is to offer a feature which won't fail |
| 9 |
unexpectedly. If a user tries to supply patches for an ebuild that |
| 10 |
doesn't explicitly support it, the user gets told at pretend time. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Couldn't the PM call a user-supplied script (which would be a file |
| 13 |
> with a special name placed in the same directory) after applying the |
| 14 |
> user patches? Since this script could do any postprocessing required, |
| 15 |
> applying user patches could be postponed until after src_prepare. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
If you want to do it that way, the feature should have no EAPI or tree |
| 18 |
support at all, and it becomes entirely reliant upon users knowing |
| 19 |
enough to sort out the problems themselves. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives