Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches (was: EAPI 5 development branch)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 15:17:25
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches (was: EAPI 5 development branch) by Ciaran McCreesh
>>>>> On Mon, 7 May 2012, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 7 May 2012 02:12:14 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: >> | Furthermore, for these EAPIs, if the function is overridden, it >> | shall be a fatal error if the apply_user_patches command has not >> | been called at least once by the end of the phase. >> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to call apply_user_patches implicitly at >> the end of the phase, if it hasn't been called before? >> >> Otherwise, a call to that function would have to be added to every >> ebuild that defines src_prepare.
> That was the point. The discussion on gentoo-dev suggested that "at > the end" is often the wrong place to put it, due to eautoreconf etc. > We need people to be explicit about where it goes.
Yes, so apply_user_patches gives ebuilds the possibility to specify the exact place. I still think that a fallback to calling it at the end of the phase would be better than aborting with a fatal error. After all, this functionality is just a stop-gap measure for users to apply quick bug fixes, so I don't expect that it will be used very often. Even fewer cases will require that eautoreconf is called. Do we really want to force developers to put this function call into every ebuild? That would be out of proportion, IMHO. Ulrich


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches (was: EAPI 5 development branch) Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>