[gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 236 bytes --]

What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running 
eautoreconf?

so instead of

src_unpack() {
	unpack ${A}
	cd "${A}"
	eautoreconf
}

would just add

EAUTORECONF="yes"
inherit base

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 359 bytes --]

On Feb 13, 2008 10:44 AM, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
> eautoreconf?
>
> so instead of
>
> src_unpack() {
>        unpack ${A}
>        cd "${A}"
>        eautoreconf
> }
>
> would just add
>
> EAUTORECONF="yes"
> inherit base
>

Sounds sensible

Paul

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 691 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Alec Warner]

On 2/12/08, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
> eautoreconf?
>
> so instead of
>
> src_unpack() {
>         unpack ${A}
>         cd "${A}"
>         eautoreconf
> }
>
> would just add
>
> EAUTORECONF="yes"
> inherit base

The former is much clearer...I don't see the gain... also in the
former example you neglected to inherit autotools ;)

>
> Regards,
> Petteri
>
>
>
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 229 bytes --]

Alec Warner kirjoitti:
> 
> The former is much clearer...I don't see the gain... also in the
> former example you neglected to inherit autotools ;)
> 

That would happen conditionally in base.eclass

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 388 bytes --]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:22 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running 
> eautoreconf?

Isn't base.eclass considered pretty much dead and to be avoided? It's a
throwback to how eclasses were originally going to work, and it doesn't
correspond nicely to ebuild default functions.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Rémi Cardona]

Petteri Räty a écrit :
> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running 
> eautoreconf?

*puts on Gnome hat*

In most of the ebuilds where we need to run eautoreconf, we usually 
apply patches. I can't remember of an ebuild where we just run 
eautoreconf on its own.

In the end, that won't help us at all (which is no reason not to have 
this :) ) but I'm afraid that adding options for semi-hidden stuff can 
come and bite us later, as we add more and more of those.

Cheers,

Rémi
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Fabian Groffen]

On 13-02-2008 08:50:19 +0100, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Petteri Räty a écrit :
>> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running 
>> eautoreconf?

> In most of the ebuilds where we need to run eautoreconf, we usually apply 
> patches. I can't remember of an ebuild where we just run eautoreconf on its 
> own.

+1
If you need to run eautoreconf without adding patches, it may be worth
adding a comment explaining why.

> In the end, that won't help us at all (which is no reason not to have this 
> :) ) but I'm afraid that adding options for semi-hidden stuff can come and 
> bite us later, as we add more and more of those.

I think it should not be added as it hides something quite important.
- it takes a lot of time on most platforms I run
- it may break (especially during bootstrapping, eautoreconfs are hell)
- it may introduce extra deps/caution (e.g. gettext macros being available)

So I'd prefer to keep it quite clear that this is happening, instead of
hiding it somewhere in an obscure corner of the ebuild.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 608 bytes --]

Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
> On 13-02-2008 08:50:19 +0100, Rémi Cardona wrote:
>> Petteri Räty a écrit :
>>> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running 
>>> eautoreconf?
> 
>> In most of the ebuilds where we need to run eautoreconf, we usually apply 
>> patches. I can't remember of an ebuild where we just run eautoreconf on its 
>> own.
> 
> +1
> If you need to run eautoreconf without adding patches, it may be worth
> adding a comment explaining why.
> 

base.eclass supports the PATCHES variable which is why I use it in the 
first place

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Matthias Schwarzott]

On Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
> > On 13-02-2008 08:50:19 +0100, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> >> Petteri Räty a écrit :
> >>> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
> >>> eautoreconf?
> >>
> >> In most of the ebuilds where we need to run eautoreconf, we usually
> >> apply patches. I can't remember of an ebuild where we just run
> >> eautoreconf on its own.
> >
> > +1
> > If you need to run eautoreconf without adding patches, it may be worth
> > adding a comment explaining why.
>
> base.eclass supports the PATCHES variable which is why I use it in the
> first place
>
How can I use PATCHES	 without quoting issues?

default is this (when not using relative pathes):
PATCHES="${FILESDIR}/p1.diff ${FILESDIR}/p2.diff"

Regards
Matthias

-- 
Matthias Schwarzott (zzam)
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Peter Volkov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 394 bytes --]


В Срд, 13/02/2008 в 13:22 +0100, Matthias Schwarzott пишет:
> How can I use PATCHES	without quoting issues?
> 
> default is this (when not using relative pathes):
> PATCHES="${FILESDIR}/p1.diff ${FILESDIR}/p2.diff"

You can not. This should be fixed like we did for font.eclass (bug
201834). BTW, kernel.eclass and I think some others have this problem
too.

-- 
Peter.

[-- Attachment #2: Эта часть сообщения подписана цифровой подписью --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 150 bytes --]

Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti:
>
> How can I use PATCHES	 without quoting issues?
> 

Attached is a patch that fixes this.

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #1.2: base.eclass-arrays.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1100 bytes --]

Index: base.eclass
===================================================================
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/eclass/base.eclass,v
retrieving revision 1.32
diff -u -r1.32 base.eclass
--- base.eclass	12 Feb 2008 23:51:51 -0000	1.32
+++ base.eclass	13 Feb 2008 19:29:21 -0000
@@ -34,10 +34,21 @@
 			debug-print-section autopatch
 			debug-print "$FUNCNAME: autopatch: PATCHES=$PATCHES, PATCHES1=$PATCHES1"
 			cd "${S}"
-			for x in $PATCHES $PATCHES1; do
-				debug-print "$FUNCNAME: autopatch: patching from ${x}"
-				epatch ${x}
-			done
+			if [[ ${#PATCHES[@]} -gt 1 ]]; then
+				for x in "${PATCHES[@]}"; do
+					debug-print "$FUNCNAME: autopatch: patching from ${x}"
+					epatch "${x}"
+				done
+			else
+				if [[ "${PATCHES}" =~ [[:space:]] ]]; then
+					eqawarn "${CATEGORY}/${P} should be updated to use arrays"
+					eqawarn "for \${PATCHES}, report this to http://bugs.gentoo.org"
+				fi
+				for x in ${PATCHES} ${PATCHES1}; do
+					debug-print "$FUNCNAME: autopatch: patching from ${x}"
+					epatch "${x}"
+				done
+			fi
 			;;
 		all)
 			debug-print-section all

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Vlastimil Babka]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 244 bytes --]

Petteri Räty wrote:
> Attached is a patch that fixes this.

Arrays? How non-POSIX!!!!1

Anyway, why don't we instead discuss what phases to add to next EAPI, so 
we can avoid these hacks :)
-- 
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Ryan Hill]

Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> Petteri Räty wrote:
>> Attached is a patch that fixes this.
> 
> Arrays? How non-POSIX!!!!1
> 
> Anyway, why don't we instead discuss what phases to add to next EAPI, so 
> we can avoid these hacks :)

Luckily, ebuilds and eclasses are written in bash.


-- 
fonts,                                            by design, by neglect
gcc-porting,                              for a fact or just for effect
wxwindows @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Bo Ørsted Andresen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 248 bytes --]

On Wednesday 13 February 2008 20:30:30 Petteri Räty wrote:
> > How can I use PATCHES  without quoting issues?
>
> Attached is a patch that fixes this.

So is someone going to fix epatch too? Otherwise it is rather moot.

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 579 bytes --]

Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
> I think it should not be added as it hides something quite important.
> - it takes a lot of time on most platforms I run
> - it may break (especially during bootstrapping, eautoreconfs are hell)
> - it may introduce extra deps/caution (e.g. gettext macros being available)
> 
> So I'd prefer to keep it quite clear that this is happening, instead of
> hiding it somewhere in an obscure corner of the ebuild.
> 

I didn't propose always running it. I don't think spotting EAUTORECONF 
is any harder than eautoreconf.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Samuli Suominen]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:22 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running 
> eautoreconf?
> 
> so instead of
> 
> src_unpack() {
> 	unpack ${A}
> 	cd "${A}"
> 	eautoreconf
> }
> 
> would just add
> 
> EAUTORECONF="yes"
> inherit base
> 
> Regards,
> Petteri
> 

And if you can't run eautoreconf but instead one of specific commands, 
eautoconf, eautomake..

Or what if you need to run AT_M4DIR="/path/to/macros" eautoreconf?

Or when you are about to remove eautoreconf, spot that fbsd is
keyworded and need to substitute it with elibtoolize to avoid
.so version breakage wouldn't it be easier to convert from what
we use now?

What about WANT_ variables?

-drac
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 608 bytes --]

Samuli Suominen kirjoitti:
> 
> And if you can't run eautoreconf but instead one of specific commands, 
> eautoconf, eautomake..
> 
> Or what if you need to run AT_M4DIR="/path/to/macros" eautoreconf?
> 
> Or when you are about to remove eautoreconf, spot that fbsd is
> keyworded and need to substitute it with elibtoolize to avoid
> .so version breakage wouldn't it be easier to convert from what
> we use now?
> 
> What about WANT_ variables?
> 
> -drac

WANT_ variables work work as before. For the other cases just use a 
custom src_unpack function like before.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: adding support for running eautoconf to base.eclass

[Marius Mauch]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:22 +0200
Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:

> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running 
> eautoreconf?
> 
> so instead of
> 
> src_unpack() {
> 	unpack ${A}
> 	cd "${A}"
> 	eautoreconf
> }
> 
> would just add
> 
> EAUTORECONF="yes"
> inherit base

How many packages do you think could directly benefit from this?

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list