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 1SKam8-0006tG-Nf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:42:48 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 656B2E0C97; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:42:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D955BE0C7D for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:41:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.42.95] (staff-wireless.saddleback.edu [209.129.85.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 09DF61B4031 for ; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 19:41:36 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F8F18EC.3000707@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:41:32 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120404 Thunderbird/11.0.1 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Making user patches globally available References: <20120415021641.1858ffde@gentoo.org> <4F8A885C.3050508@gentoo.org> <20120418185913.3d2fa68f@epia.jer-c2.orkz.net> <201204181340.00474.vapier@gentoo.org> <20120418184138.50153e57@googlemail.com> <4F8F05E9.5070103@gentoo.org> <4F8F0929.2010109@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F8F0929.2010109@googlemail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2d525f11-96fb-4cf3-83dc-f8b948780454 X-Archives-Hash: 9eeed243fc488d59f9ed1a4b34b4bf94 On 04/18/2012 11:34 AM, David Leverton wrote: > Zac Medico wrote: >> Also, maybe apply_user_patches_here should have a special return value >> if there are no patches to be applied? That way, src_prepare can avoid >> an eautoreconf call if there are no patches. > > Does that imply that every ebuild for an autotools-based package would > be expected to have an "apply_user_patches_here && eautoreconf" line, > just in case the user might want to add custom patches? It could be > exported by autotools.eclass, but even so, requiring every autotools > ebuild to inherit the eclass even if it doesn't have any effect by > default seems a bit unfortunate. Isn't that just a consequence of how autotools works? Do you have a better alternative? -- Thanks, Zac