| 1 |
>>>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Dnia 2015-10-17, o godz. 14:19:15 |
| 4 |
> "Jason A. Donenfeld" <zx2c4@g.o> napisał(a): |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
>> What's the story of eapply? Why does this need to go into the PMS, |
| 7 |
>> and not continue to be supplied by epatch from the eclass? What |
| 8 |
>> is gained from moving it to PMS, and why is it more semantically |
| 9 |
>> correct to have it there? Just curious about this. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> There are two reasons: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> 1. patching is quite common. The idea behind part of my additions |
| 14 |
> for EAPI 6 was to add really common and reusable things, so they |
| 15 |
> wouldn't have to be carried over in eclasses forever. Having eapply |
| 16 |
> in EAPI 6 means a fair number of ebuilds will not have to inherit |
| 17 |
> huge eutils. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Also epatch will still be available in eutils.eclass for complicated |
| 20 |
cases. For example, eapply doesn't do autodetection of the path prefix |
| 21 |
depth, but is hardwired to -p1. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Ulrich |
Archives