From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7336E138010 for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:34:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E17D8E0B15; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:34:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3A60E0AFE for ; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:34:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiocik.lan (77-253-144-190.adsl.inetia.pl [77.253.144.190]) (using SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1EB9D33DCD2; Wed, 3 Apr 2013 17:34:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 19:35:31 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: tomas.chvatal@gmail.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function? Message-ID: <20130403193531.4fab262c@pomiocik.lan> In-Reply-To: <23953450.kLgeMlCRZ8@arcarius> References: <20130403111437.4c1e0aa6@pomiocik.lan> <515C219A.7090300@gentoo.org> <20130403162948.65e37ffa@googlemail.com> <23953450.kLgeMlCRZ8@arcarius> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.0 (GTK+ 2.24.17; 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-SHA512; boundary="Sig_/hameNFo6QQ_X_b3oXRNCX4F"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: e017baeb-846f-410f-b4bf-8fd7dbe9707a X-Archives-Hash: abfa5d99da3855310965a27ace1e3324 --Sig_/hameNFo6QQ_X_b3oXRNCX4F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:56:29 +0200 Tom=C3=A1=C5=A1 Chv=C3=A1tal wrote: > Dne St 3. dubna 2013 16:29:48, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > >=20 > > On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 > > hasufell wrote: > >=20 > > > You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already > > > uses that name with epatch. > >=20 > >=20 > > base.eclass should have died a horrible death a long time ago. A new > > EAPI is an excellent opportunity to ban it. > >=20 >=20 > This is actually good idea to ban the base.eclass usage, but wonder how=20 > complex it would make all the eclasses that currently inherit it. I think EAPI 6 should export all the means necessary to reimplement the missing parts of it, inclusing user docs install and patch application functions. Is there anything else that would be necessary? --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/hameNFo6QQ_X_b3oXRNCX4F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJRXGhjXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ1RUJGMjBGOTk2RkIzQzIyQ0M2RkNBNDBC QUJGMUQ1RkY4QzgxMTBBAAoJELq/HV/4yBEKie0P/3dvrQwZi9IG0sF76Z9iDdxY yGiPAUnNE3jXf3rsYncOzsxkx3p8TFGVWznWekaHdDw1fcfn9yx0YGnEgIPCyEcm 7FpPLGrkg//FcaeBPgJHnu2h+46iJM3zfUPDvxSXnuzqFqoo8EBT5MIdrm+sA7Ka unavCWC1yk9a+8mIVDRQ+MsKiODxSPC4kaCviiwfOM+OEq8AYRH0NLmVGuE1Kk2D cjplojVdspjcLxKwP6qPhywo7mDTFWTFLAwsQID9PzXKj/MVZ3pybUsCE2OEyipN voZgmlafbAOMX+qJhHrI1cp44RRgClybOi/UBUXoYJ3uNhaPW78ZEuPYpKqIot2Q obWLPCEp4jWdLMVTQse95s7JXPEUo9TBfRZwFvN32ULwYf6zYHNPe7f/KAl0CNJZ kVVdxUurpiiDY/6wWfxxInYc6sKWW2dZobNW1w9TyGKVhpq2nnt7z9lYUjmQdNoI d2q4o0dOogLi1iTEiSoHuWbuhi7qvakvjMIp8bdKks4ofFBhNB08SXN/LlaNDaNU 1vCJhSJxY8Laem4hImIrTtcBw6NFTqgibiben0sidAIDAWcO/sm56/M0FaFWYQyM LYDRKCPZaVNPzPF7fkPniyqmTKK2lvTVbUPBqB3WppBUsJp/MB1LUFU0yeiXj04/ otTNV7+ssr6383J2Bi3a =kFM5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/hameNFo6QQ_X_b3oXRNCX4F--