----- Original Message -----
> On 03-04-2012 08:37:57 -0000, Gregory M. Turner wrote:
> > Current prefix SOP is to epatch a bunch of files with
> > @GENTOO_PORTAGE_EPREFIX@ and then eprefixify the affected files.
> > Although this adds a bit of precision and flexibility, it leads
> > to laundry lists in the ebuild, especially if/when we start
> > getting more rigorous about prefixification. The attached eclass
> > provides eprefixify_patch, which simply prefixifies the patch
> > itself before applying.
>
> Feels dirty too ;)
Admittedly, there is a certain inelegance there. But I can't imagine a
real-world scenario which both: would correctly be solved by 'patch +
eprefixify'; but would not correctly be solved by eprefixify_patch. It would
have to be something like, "well, foo.patch puts '@GENTOO_PORTAGE_EPREFIX@'
into 20 different places in '${S}', but only 18 of them are to be eprefixified;
the other two are correct patches to the source", which hardly seems like a
use-case worth preserving.
The idea is to promote clarity and correctness by:
o Eliminating redundant information (files in patch vs. files eprefixified
in ebuild)
o Eliminating potential for error (did we remember to eprefixify all the files
that we patched? did we leave behind formerly-eprefixified files in the
ebuild?)
o Minimizing prefix-specific changes to ebuilds be getting rid of laundry-lists
o Encouraging a clear distinction between two types of patches: normal patches,
which typically are reverse-able and have legitimate source files as both
their input and output, and "eprefixification" patches, which leave the
source in an intermediate state, and become pseudo-irreversible once that
intermediate state is resolved back to a source-file (plus, this
approach makes them reversible again).
> > It also includes some quick & dirty tools to prefixify /bin/{ba,}sh
> > shebangs. I'm using both in my overlay. So far, so good. What
> > I'm using it /for/ is a more interesting question that I'd like to
> > bring up in a separate, presumably more controversial thread.
> > Anyhow, for the moment I thought these might come in handy or at
> > least precipitate an interesting flamewar :)
>
> I fail to see how this is necessary. Portage already fixes
> those/these shebangs, doesn't it?
Not on my system (which isn't saying much :) )... Where is that supposed to be
happening? I have a vague memory of prefix-portage doing this at one time, but
the code is not jumping out at me.
-gmt
