From: Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] EAPI6 Features
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2014 16:38:43 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <21396.30067.503349.626165@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGfcS_mQXrGoi3cs_K+dBtbLaMUytB_vyNAEmf+G+o1cH+qM5g@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4316 bytes --]
>>>>> On Sun, 8 Jun 2014, Rich Freeman wrote:
>> b) failglob in global scope
>> Bug #463822
> I'm a bit concerned that this one could be a cure worse than the
> disease - unintended side-effects/etc. A repoman check seems a lot
> less likely to cause problems.
Any specific example of a side effect that you have in mind? I believe
that there are none in global scope, but maybe we shouldn't extend the
feature to function scope.
>> 4. Features rejected from EAPI 5
> Ok, I suspect we're going to spend about 95% of the time on these.
Yes. ;-)
>> a) Patch applying function in package manager
>> Bug #463768
>> - Needed for 2d) and 4b)
>> - This will duplicate epatch() from eutils, in simplified form.
>> - Name "eapply" has been suggested.
> My two cents. Keep an eclass for the fancy stuff, but move into the
> EAPI a few basic patch functions:
> 1. Application of a patch file, defaulting to -p1, allowing override
> of -p level, but without auto-detection.
> 2. Application of a directory full of patch files in lexical order,
> again supporting override of -p level without auto-detection.
> I'm not a big fan of either auto-detection or forcing patch re-writes
> to be -p1 always.
This more or less agrees with the status of the discussion:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=463768#c32
We haven't decided yet if there should be autodetection, but I'd also
prefer a -p1 default without autodetection. There's always epatch if
you need anything more fancy.
>> b) User patches
>> Bug #475288
>> - Needs 4a)
>> - Current wording of the spec requires that every ebuild must
>> include a call to the function in src_prepare, which is
>> controversial.
>> - Names "apply_user_patches" or "eapply_user" have been suggested.
> I'm generally fine with it (we can bikeshed the name to death later),
> but is there any reason to not just simply apply the patches after
> src_prepare is done and not make maintainers call it? If we're
> concerned about sequencing with other activities in src_prepare then
> that is fine - I don't have a big problem with it being a fatal error
> if it doesn't get called.
IMHO the package manager shouldn't perform any operations between
src_* phases, outside of phase functions. Therefore, the user patch
function should be called either from src_prepare, or from a phase
function (src_userpatch?) newly introduced.
I'd strongly dislike a new phase function, but conceptionally, it
would still be much cleaner than doing some magic after src_prepare.
My suggestion would be to add the user patch function to
default_src_prepare, plus a policy that the function must be called if
an ebuild (or eclass) contains an explicit src_prepare(). The latter
could be enforced by repoman.
>> c) EJOBS variable
>> Bug #273101
>> - Discussion was in 2008. Is there (still) consensus?
> Assuming anybody still wants to implement this, I see no reason to
> keep bikeshedding this. EJOBS fits the bill.
> The only thing that might be worth noting is that distcc users may
> have an interest in distinguishing between gcc jobs and everything
> else. I once messed with dictcc with very high job numbers and it
> worked great when make hit a directory full of .c files, and not so
> great when make/ant/whatever tried to run 50 instances of java in
> parallel.
I don't have a strong opinion about this one.
However, my general advice would be not to impose work on PMS and
package manager teams, for features that nobody is pushing any longer.
>> d) Source eclasses only once
>> Bug #422533
> Does anybody still want this included? It seems to me like the list
> discussion was leading in a different direction, but it isn't 100%
> clear to me if this is the case.
Right, discussion has died down. Many eclasses now use a mechanism
equivalent to the one in C header files, which seems to do the job.
>> e) HDEPEND: host dependencies for cross-compilation
>> Bug #317337
> It isn't 100% clear to me which of the 14 proposed solutions in that
> bug is the final answer, but I think it is DEPEND becomes target
> depends, and HDEPEND is introduced as host depends.
> Is the final intent that if HDEPEND isn't defined, then
> HDEPEND=DEPEND, or does HDEPEND=""?
We did RDEPEND=${DEPEND} once and it was a mistake. So I think default
HDEPEND should be empty.
Ulrich
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-06-08 14:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-06-08 13:04 [gentoo-project] EAPI6 Features Rich Freeman
2014-06-08 14:38 ` Ulrich Mueller [this message]
2014-06-08 15:09 ` Rich Freeman
2014-06-08 19:15 ` Pacho Ramos
2014-06-08 20:56 ` Ulrich Mueller
2014-06-09 8:50 ` Pacho Ramos
2014-06-08 21:49 ` Michał Górny
2014-06-08 15:29 ` Jeroen Roovers
2014-06-08 16:56 ` Ulrich Mueller
2014-06-08 17:22 ` Andreas K. Huettel
2014-06-08 17:26 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2014-06-08 17:28 ` Ulrich Mueller
2014-06-08 21:40 ` Michał Górny
2014-06-08 22:58 ` Rich Freeman
2014-06-09 2:57 ` Michał Górny
2014-06-09 10:12 ` Ulrich Mueller
2014-06-09 14:31 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2014-06-09 15:29 ` [gentoo-project] " Jonathan Callen
2014-06-09 16:23 ` Ulrich Mueller
2014-06-09 16:31 ` Michał Górny
2014-06-09 16:43 ` Ian Stakenvicius
2014-06-09 16:47 ` Ulrich Mueller
2014-06-09 19:20 ` Jeroen Roovers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=21396.30067.503349.626165@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de \
--to=ulm@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox