From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SbdXX-0007w4-Dg for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 04 Jun 2012 20:06:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 92971E09C4; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:05:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09297E06B4 for ; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:05:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (p14.ppp.polbox.pl [213.241.7.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4D6401B402C; Mon, 4 Jun 2012 20:05:10 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2012 22:06:26 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: hasufell@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH vcs-snapshot] Use ${WORKDIR}/${P} rather than ${S} to support ${S} overrides. Message-ID: <20120604220626.2630937b@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <4FCD0BC8.6050608@gentoo.org> References: <1338803954-3814-1-git-send-email-mgorny@gentoo.org> <4FCCC412.6000000@gentoo.org> <20120604175047.1d1ed5a4@pomiocik.lan> <4FCD0BC8.6050608@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.0 (GTK+ 2.24.10; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA256; boundary="Sig_/FH06UG2CVMK560.1wbPKSOt"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: d28b1833-7b64-462f-bf92-f54e6701cc46 X-Archives-Hash: 2f753642f053c1151f2d4314ab8f1ea8 --Sig_/FH06UG2CVMK560.1wbPKSOt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 21:26:00 +0200 hasufell wrote: > But minetest in sunrise for example which has two different repos, one > for the engine, one for the data. It's currently split in two, but I > guess I will merge those soon. Why? Is there a good reason to merge two repos into one ebuild? Does upstream guarantee that the releases will always be synced? Does it benefit users? > Lately there was an ebuild proposal in sunrise too which had that > issue, see here https://gist.github.com/2829184 That's a more likely case. But still such a change would involve changing an established API heavily which I really dislike. > It would also enable me to use gtk-youtube-viewer and youtube-viewer > in one ebuild with vcs-snapshot eclass while adding a gtk useflag > (currently split too). > Otherwise I will have to fix it on my own again. Once again: does it benefit user? Or just does it imply that starting or stopping to use gtk part requires user to rebuild the whole thing? > I find the logic very clear: >=20 > SRC=3D"https://my/github/shit -> ${P}.tar.gz" > results in ${WORKDIR}/${P} > and > SRC=3D"https://my/github/shit -> ${P}-src.tar.gz" > results in ${WORKDIR}/${P}-src I really don't mind the logic. I'm just aware that it is a little late to introduce such a destructive change, especially that you yourself mentioned that it will break existing ebuilds. I will be happy to implement it if you can get more approval for that change. Or else we should consider jumping with the eclass to -r1 while it isn't widespread too much. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/FH06UG2CVMK560.1wbPKSOt Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iJwEAQEIAAYFAk/NFUMACgkQfXuS5UK5QB1qUgP/VGt5uy+UVH+ZuVZDGP4Wgs+r Rc+TG9+BHyAW7eFHr2fFl23BHRbgvusqXZzxn7ci9xyhDcBaG2iFx4dk/Y1zVBd7 hHGEyEEymjw/dzm++9XkHvt9QhzpNhs4Ma+Gs5ElNTDU0HuSWW9r8ey5NOYvOZd3 pvE1wG1N9OR5eOuK2Vo= =gRfx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/FH06UG2CVMK560.1wbPKSOt--