Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12

[Samuli Suominen]

On 06/03/2012 11:18 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> On 06/03/2012 04:26 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 06/03/2012 06:20 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2012 03:01 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 05/29/2012 10:09 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
>>>>> http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_920c6d6daafe7702bfa3b8a2bc21e0c1.xml
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
> Can you indicate what the council has to vote on/decide for this one?
>>>>
>>>>> EAPI=5
>>>>
>>>>> optional: "$@" placement in default for src_configure()
>>>>
>>>>> econf "$@"
>>>>
>>>>> optional: "$@" placement in default for src_compile()
>>>>
>>>>> emake "$@"
>>>>
>>>> I still don't see the point of it. econf or emake could just be
>>>> called directly. We won't gain anything by allowing arguments,
>>>> but only complicate things.
>>>>
>>>>> this one is what I'm really after for:
>>>>
>>>>> default for src_install() in EAPI=5 should accept "$@" in
>>>>> correct place to avoid usage of EXTRA_EMAKE within
>>>>> ebuilds/eclasses and to avoid duplicating the Portage code
>>>>> for DOCS. NOTE: When this was last voted on for EAPI=3, we
>>>>> didn't have this DOCS handling, and this wasn't important
>>>>> yet.
>>>>
>>>>> emake DESTDIR="${D}" "$@" install
>>>>
>>>> Again, this could be called directly, which has the advantage
>>>> that it makes it obvious that src_install isn't the default.
>>>
>>> The difference is working the tree when you have to alter ebuilds
>>> which have been written like:
>>>
>>> DOCS=( AUTHORS README.NOW "${FILESDIR}"/README.Gentoo )
>>>
>>> src_install() { default
>>>
>>> echo "Some command here." }
>>>
>>> At this point you have to move content of DOCS which may or may
>>> not rely on the ""quoting with array"". Remove the call to
>>> default. And then duplicate the EAPI=4 default into the ebuild.
>>>
>>> And then replicate that every month dozen times and keep on doing
>>> it for some months. Get frustrated.
>>>
>>> If that's not enough, then you get all excited about EAPI=4 and
>>> finally think you have a replacement for base.eclass to port
>>> xfconf.eclass away from the thing when you only used it for
>>> default src_install() to avoid code duplication...
>>>
>>> Think you are all done, and then get complainment that support
>>> for extra arguments for xfconf_src_install was killed, and was
>>> required for things like:
>>>
>>> xfconf_src_install htmldirectory=/usr/share/doc/${PF}/html
>>> imagesdir=/usr/share/doc/${PF}/html/images
>>>
>>> Where sedding the build system runs maintainer mode at .in level,
>>> and runnning autotools (.am level) requires heavy documentation
>>> dependencies. You go back to base.eclass and get frustrated
>>> more.
>>>
>>> I hope that clears things up ;-)
>>>
>>
>> Also, if not implemented, what is the replacement for EXTRA_EMAKE
>> which we are allowed to use from ebuilds? Or are we allowed to use
>> it? I think PMS didn't forbid it the last time I checked and it has
>> consumers in tree already.
>>
>> And if not implemented, would the council please vote on banning
>> the usage of `default` in src_install() directly from ebuilds? The
>> syntax back and forth converting MUST stop.
>>
>> - Samuli
>>
> What is the problem with "default" in src_install?

Did you not read the mail at all? The lack of support for arguments 
makes it useless, and even harmful/annoying when you have to convert 
them constantly around the tree

-Samuli