1 |
On 4/4/21 10:54 AM, Nekun wrote: |
2 |
> Hi all. |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Recently, I start working on optional atom specifiers feature in |
5 |
> userpatch facility: if package directory name starts with percent sign, |
6 |
> following word threated as a regular Portage atom, e.g |
7 |
> "/etc/portage/patches/sys-kernel/%<=gentoo-sources-5.4" == |
8 |
> "<=sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-5.4". This might be very useful in cases |
9 |
> when patches applied to minor updates, but major update breaks it (e.g., |
10 |
> in Linux kernel), so I want to specify smth like "=gentoo-sources-5.4*". |
11 |
> I added new command in portageq to match two atoms and call it from |
12 |
> eapply_user function in phase-function.sh, in same manner as |
13 |
> has_version/best_version are called it. But recently I found that |
14 |
> eapply_user implemented in Portage only in EAPI 6, and there is its |
15 |
> predecessor, epatch_user, implemented in epatch.eclass. So, ebuilds with |
16 |
> EAPI<6 (I found 4463 in last gentoo snapshot) will ignore new "atomic" |
17 |
> patch directories. Obviously, this is rather confusing, unacceptable |
18 |
> behaviour. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Can I patch epatch.eclass in gentoo repository to implement new |
21 |
> userpatch facility for older EAPIs? I guess that EAPI version is |
22 |
> considered as stable, unchangeable behaviour of all functions, but in |
23 |
> other side, this feature doesn't changes anything existing: old |
24 |
> userpatch semantics preserves and order of applying |
25 |
> (${P}-${PR},${P},${PN}) not changed, seeking for atoms added at tail. |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
Today, I count only 2445, or 8.3% of ebuilds have EAPI 5. |
29 |
|
30 |
I imagine that the migration is moving along, since we deprecated EAPI 5 |
31 |
on 2020-11-26 here: |
32 |
|
33 |
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=b2e281bb698eb93704e1987dc4df1cf2dd3c2cff |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Thanks, |
37 |
Zac |