Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] pre/post phase hooks for users
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:08:21
Message-Id: 20051020230759.GB6127@nightcrawler
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] pre/post phase hooks for users by Jason Stubbs
1 On Thu, Oct 20, 2005 at 11:37:07PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
2 > On Saturday 15 October 2005 07:05, Brian Harring wrote:
3 > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 05:02:02PM -0500, Brian Harring wrote:
4 > > > Jason, your thoughts on this 53 wise?
5 > >
6 > > Bleh, pardon, meant .54 for inclussion
7 >
8 > Just to be sure it's clear to everybody (although I think Brian knows
9 > already), my job is not to approve or disapprove of any particular change to
10 > any particular release. If you want to put a title on it, it'd simply be
11 > called "release executor". Hence, the answer to the above question really
12 > lies in the outcome of the .54 thread. The only small perk is that any
13 > suggestions I might have on the release process are quick to be
14 > integrated. ;)
15 Yah I know, but it still is fun punting stuff past you since my normal
16 inclination portage wise, is for things to be a bit raw (progress
17 baby). ;)
18
19 > On Tuesday 11 October 2005 17:05, Brian Harring wrote:
20 > > That said, their will be an exemption for java ebuilds due to the fact
21 > > that they're blocked by ebuild.sh env handling- they need ebd for
22 > > things to work properly, and in the meantime this gives them a method
23 > > to have things work properly. Downside is that the pre/post hooks are
24 > > not available for users for java ebuilds.
25 >
26 > Why exactly would their be an exemption for java ebuilds? Are the hooks
27 > intended to be used with ebuild packaging as well as by users? Wouldn't new
28 > or altered phases serve ebuild packaging better? If it is for ebuild
29 > packaging, wouldn't the EAPI need to change? If it's not for ebuild
30 > packaging, again why the exemption?
31 >
32 > On the user side of things, will the hooks continue on into later versions?
33 > Specifically, with 3.0 supporting hooks on the python side will the bash
34 > hooks be deprecated? It seems reasonable that both can coexist nicely, so
35 > this is more just confirmation then anything.
36
37 Bash hooks would exist in 3.0; they're user specific hooks only, hence
38 the bit about java being an evil exception till 3.0 comes to town. I
39 intend to lock down the pre/post hooks prior to ebuild sourcing under
40 ebd, so ebuilds/eclasses trying to use those hooks won't be able to.
41
42 In the meantime, it's a nice abuse of a user feature that makes java
43 1.4->1.5 stuff work, and works fine when 3.0 autodisables it.
44
45 Regarding EAPI, since it's user specific feature, no need; java
46 ebuilds will have to depend on a portage version capable of the hooks
47 however.
48 ~harring

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH] pre/post phase hooks for users Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@g.o>