Gentoo Archives: gentoo-pms

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-pms@l.g.o
Cc: michael@××××××××.com
Subject: Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches
Date: Mon, 07 May 2012 16:41:03
Message-Id: 20120507184130.6fc6ee79@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches by Michael Orlitzky
On Mon, 07 May 2012 12:19:40 -0400
Michael Orlitzky <michael@××××××××.com> wrote:

> On 05/07/12 11:17, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > > > 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. > > Only the ebuilds that override src_prepare (which is a lot).
The reason for src_prepare() was to simplify ebuilds (so they don't have to override whole src_unpack()). Requiring a specific line in every src_prepare() call means going the other way.
> Can that be increased to, say, 99% without any extra effort? > > Are there easy heuristics to determine whether or not user patches > require eautoreconf? For example, if the patches fail at the beginning > of src_prepare, and the ebuild calls eautoreconf, that's a good > indication that we should call eautoreconf after the user patches are > applied (at the end of src_prepare).
That's an extra effort. And by making it overcomplex, you introduce yet another new corner cases. -- Best regards, Michał Górny


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-pms] apply_user_patches Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o>