Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12
Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2012 15:02:45
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12 by Samuli Suominen
Hash: SHA512

On 06/03/2012 10:44 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> 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: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>>>>
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 >
You don't have to be offensive. Of course I've read it. My point is that if you use "default" in src_install, you need the default function for that EAPI. If you want to override it then implement your own email <foo> <bar> install line. I just don't understand why you want us to ban it. Personally I find it useful to call "default" from src_install. - -- Regards, Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJPy1eLAAoJEPqDWhW0r/LCHW8P/iJIY1I+s8Tn1qEcFj6ZUbXI /QI7XPyDbaZMcr3XwoaYuxrj7QLx3XUipnutcSfZP9hLlLsVmYOf2OtBwJZyRpdr wnxNXFh7yFkJncFjLIldvJ1be8eLaZmA+PnkzqIHc+mX+BpyP48ISF1CFQAwLAP5 llMGHV3DZ7C0Fw4p3qDsyohnL1wwNyC5e3Mq/rfuurddn0bN4aKwyKjVY5SBrt/+ xQQoXvTN/up8BcEllLEXGBmgp7aHVxUQR6guW4Q+j7sab6Lxn4HRzakwEYVeBB9K PAe8V9OGRCXCZhVUUp8rNob8rJy2HRLT95yfV3qHYAsPDXxpiGMObafMR8bPhLiu 0Uq+4ODBJW49cTlpCv/jQ+ztHuM1aeZgy6kDurDpgGH+VeTZiG5bk7wVUdzsPZcx g5GmYHLxBTT3sQ3ynntezTRLNg62UgfLdItIMe2INfNgf4FC6hlNgo53irNR+RrK S8u11r9bLGmp84GbBPxJvhpbpcjS7lJfCgPQAVR8ZrV5NrgYiiCSd7Vl30l39iUR Ltn/5A7DxlN0ua5X1sDp37Y0VPUoAtiL99hzFELCoRKV891zDlcDPhOajiBBDM+V JHKsmT8ckIsjbCuN5EuSMSHnFDNGvsAoLauMMZXAbmNeNpSZ61VWBI/nipcC32i9 j8arDp1/i9aCctAy9jTC =Dnf1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----