[gentoo-dev] doheader function for EAPI 5?

[gentoo-dev] doheader function for EAPI 5?

[Ulrich Mueller]

Hi all,

A new "doheader" (and "newheader") helper function is on our list of
possible EAPI 5 features. It would be very easy to implement, just
copy the code from doconfd or doenvd.

However, this function was suggested in Bug 21310 [1] which was filed
in 2003. The absence of any activity there makes me wonder if anybody
cares about the feature?

Ulrich

[1] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21310>

Re: [gentoo-dev] doheader function for EAPI 5?

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 466 bytes --]

On 8/31/12 10:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> A new "doheader" (and "newheader") helper function is on our list of
> possible EAPI 5 features. It would be very easy to implement, just
> copy the code from doconfd or doenvd.

I'm somewhat interested. Here's the current code dev-lang/v8 uses to
install headers:

    insinto /usr
    doins -r include || die

Using e.g. "doheader include/*" is slightly prettier IMHO, but it's not
a big deal.

Paweł


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] doheader function for EAPI 5?

[Sergey Popov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 325 bytes --]

31.08.2012 12:35, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> I'm somewhat interested. Here's the current code dev-lang/v8 uses to
> install headers:
>
>     insinto /usr
>     doins -r include || die
>
> Using e.g. "doheader include/*" is slightly prettier IMHO, but it's not
> a big deal.
I am also voting for such function.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 554 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] doheader function for EAPI 5?

[Zac Medico]

On 08/31/2012 01:20 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> A new "doheader" (and "newheader") helper function is on our list of
> possible EAPI 5 features. It would be very easy to implement, just
> copy the code from doconfd or doenvd.
> 
> However, this function was suggested in Bug 21310 [1] which was filed
> in 2003. The absence of any activity there makes me wonder if anybody
> cares about the feature?
> 
> Ulrich
> 
> [1] <https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21310>

PMS does not document this, and the current Portage implementation
supports -r since it passes the arguments to doins as noted here:

  https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21310#c5

-- 
Thanks,
Zac