Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@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 06:02:53
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-06-12 by Samuli Suominen
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