[gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Doug Goldstein]

So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to run
eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it unconditionally but
sometimes users have patches which touch autoconf files but my
existing patch set doesn't so I'm not calling eautoreconf. Does anyone
have a suggested way to handle this?

Thanks.
-- 
Doug Goldstein

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Arun Raghavan]

On 24 April 2012 09:15, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
> users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to run
> eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it unconditionally but
> sometimes users have patches which touch autoconf files but my
> existing patch set doesn't so I'm not calling eautoreconf. Does anyone
> have a suggested way to handle this?

grub2 checks for a DO_AUTORECONF env. var. to decide whether to run
eautoreconf. This does cause some QA warnings, though.

-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 532 bytes --]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:45:36 -0500
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
> users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to run
> eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it unconditionally but
> sometimes users have patches which touch autoconf files but my
> existing patch set doesn't so I'm not calling eautoreconf. Does anyone
> have a suggested way to handle this?

inherit autotools-utils

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Alexandre Rostovtsev]

On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 06:05 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:45:36 -0500
> Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
> > users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to run
> > eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it unconditionally but
> > sometimes users have patches which touch autoconf files but my
> > existing patch set doesn't so I'm not calling eautoreconf. Does anyone
> > have a suggested way to handle this?
> 
> inherit autotools-utils

That doesn't help the numerous packages that don't ship some of the
autoconf macros they use in their source tarball, and therefore require
additional build-time dependencies (gnome-common, gtk-doc-am, and so
forth) to provide the macros needed for eautoreconf.

-Alexandre.

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1234 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:14:15 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2012-04-24 at 06:05 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:45:36 -0500
> > Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for
> > > allowing users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to
> > > run eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it
> > > unconditionally but sometimes users have patches which touch
> > > autoconf files but my existing patch set doesn't so I'm not
> > > calling eautoreconf. Does anyone have a suggested way to handle
> > > this?
> > 
> > inherit autotools-utils
> 
> That doesn't help the numerous packages that don't ship some of the
> autoconf macros they use in their source tarball, and therefore
> require additional build-time dependencies (gnome-common, gtk-doc-am,
> and so forth) to provide the macros needed for eautoreconf.

We can't help them unless you want the whole tree (including those
packages) to forcedly depend on them.

It's simply better just to assume: if user wants user patches, he/she
needs to have necessary deps installed.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 451 bytes --]

On Tuesday 24 April 2012 00:18:59 Michał Górny wrote:
> It's simply better just to assume: if user wants user patches, he/she
> needs to have necessary deps installed.

if the package doesn't ever run autotools itself, i think this assumption is 
fine.  set AUTOTOOLS_AUTO_DEPEND=no before inherting things and always run 
autotools if the user applies patches.  otherwise we penalize a lot of people 
who don't apply custom patches.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 546 bytes --]

On Monday 23 April 2012 23:45:36 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
> users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to run
> eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it unconditionally but
> sometimes users have patches which touch autoconf files but my
> existing patch set doesn't so I'm not calling eautoreconf. Does anyone
> have a suggested way to handle this?

just always call it when the user applies patches.  i don't see a big deal.
	epatch_user && eautoreconf
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 730 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:10:30 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Monday 23 April 2012 23:45:36 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
> > users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to run
> > eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it unconditionally but
> > sometimes users have patches which touch autoconf files but my
> > existing patch set doesn't so I'm not calling eautoreconf. Does
> > anyone have a suggested way to handle this?
> 
> just always call it when the user applies patches.  i don't see a big
> deal. epatch_user && eautoreconf
> -mike

No configure.{ac,in} present!

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 857 bytes --]

On Tuesday 24 April 2012 00:15:45 Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:10:30 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 23 April 2012 23:45:36 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > > So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
> > > users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to run
> > > eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it unconditionally but
> > > sometimes users have patches which touch autoconf files but my
> > > existing patch set doesn't so I'm not calling eautoreconf. Does
> > > anyone have a suggested way to handle this?
> > 
> > just always call it when the user applies patches.  i don't see a big
> > deal. epatch_user && eautoreconf
> 
> No configure.{ac,in} present!

if the package doesn't have configure.{ac,in} files, then why would he be 
talking about eautoreconf ?
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1099 bytes --]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:25:56 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday 24 April 2012 00:15:45 Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 00:10:30 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Monday 23 April 2012 23:45:36 Doug Goldstein wrote:
> > > > So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for
> > > > allowing users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when
> > > > to run eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it
> > > > unconditionally but sometimes users have patches which touch
> > > > autoconf files but my existing patch set doesn't so I'm not
> > > > calling eautoreconf. Does anyone have a suggested way to handle
> > > > this?
> > > 
> > > just always call it when the user applies patches.  i don't see a
> > > big deal. epatch_user && eautoreconf
> > 
> > No configure.{ac,in} present!
> 
> if the package doesn't have configure.{ac,in} files, then why would
> he be talking about eautoreconf ?

Ah, so we're talking per-package now. Sorry, thought it would be forced
everywhere.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch_user usage

[Doug Goldstein]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 11:10 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Monday 23 April 2012 23:45:36 Doug Goldstein wrote:
>> So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
>> users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to run
>> eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it unconditionally but
>> sometimes users have patches which touch autoconf files but my
>> existing patch set doesn't so I'm not calling eautoreconf. Does anyone
>> have a suggested way to handle this?
>
> just always call it when the user applies patches.  i don't see a big deal.
>        epatch_user && eautoreconf
> -mike

That works. I was wondering if you guys did anything more crafty but
this is fine.

Thanks all for the input.

-- 
Doug Goldstein

[gentoo-dev] Re: epatch_user usage

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 861 bytes --]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 22:45:36 -0500
Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:

> So I've just had one reservation when using epatch_user for allowing
> users to apply patches. And that's figuring out when to run
> eautoreconf. I don't necessarily want to run it unconditionally but
> sometimes users have patches which touch autoconf files but my
> existing patch set doesn't so I'm not calling eautoreconf. Does anyone
> have a suggested way to handle this?

It's kind of hacky, but what about having the user `touch eautoreconf` in the
patch directory?  Or a file named "post_patch" containing a list of commands
to run.

Could we detect user patches touching autoconf files somehow, maybe by
hashing them beforehand or grepping patch headers, or would this be too error
prone?


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets
@ gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: epatch_user usage

[Zac Medico]

On 04/25/2012 09:45 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> Could we detect user patches touching autoconf files somehow, maybe by
> hashing them beforehand 

There's an implementation of that inside autotools-utils_src_prepare.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: epatch_user usage

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:06:08 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On 04/25/2012 09:45 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Could we detect user patches touching autoconf files somehow, maybe
> > by hashing them beforehand 
> 
> There's an implementation of that inside autotools-utils_src_prepare.

There's all kinds of reasons to not use autotools-utils.eclass.
I wouldn't want to see another python.eclass bullying around the tree.


Sincerely,
    jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: epatch_user usage

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 676 bytes --]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 06:50:12 +0200
Jeroen Roovers <jer@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 22:06:08 -0700
> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 04/25/2012 09:45 PM, Ryan Hill wrote:
> > > Could we detect user patches touching autoconf files somehow,
> > > maybe by hashing them beforehand 
> > 
> > There's an implementation of that inside
> > autotools-utils_src_prepare.
> 
> There's all kinds of reasons to not use autotools-utils.eclass.
> I wouldn't want to see another python.eclass bullying around the tree.

   504 autotools-utils.eclass
  3186 python.eclass

Do you have any real arguments?

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 316 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: epatch_user usage

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1245 bytes --]

On Fri, 4 May 2012 22:23:31 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > There's all kinds of reasons to not use autotools-utils.eclass.
> > I wouldn't want to see another python.eclass bullying around the tree.
> 
>    504 autotools-utils.eclass
>   3186 python.eclass
> 
> Do you have any real arguments?

I think his point was that like the python eclass, autotools-utils requires
you to give up a lot of control over your ebuild to it.  It started out as a
simple way to standardize common autotools-related tasks.  Then it began
growing and adding a bunch of stuff that, while I'm sure was useful to some,
I didn't need or had to handle differently.  Then these features started
becoming interdependent and I started getting bug reports about how my
packages were misusing the eclass because I didn't want to cede full control
over to its phase functions.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the reasons why it has to work the way it
does and I'm sure most people are fine with it.  But I'm wary about giving
that much power over to an eclass I can't control.  I hate exported phase
functions in general though, so read into that what you will.


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting
toolchain, wxwidgets
@ gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]