Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 23:31:17 +0530 > Arun Raghavan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> > The benefit is that it's a logically separate action, and will avoid >> > all the silliness of people repeatedly changing their minds about >> > which phase should do the eautoreconf calls and so on. Er, that would be the new src_configure?
>> >> a) Is this really an issue for maintainers? > > It's not a huge issue, any more than src_configure is. Equally, it's not > expensive to implement. > >> b) Does it really matter? > > In the grand scheme of things, no. In the grand scheme of things, you > only *need* a single src_ function. From a maintainer convenience > perspective, however, src_prepare is marginally more useful than having > a split src_configure. > How so? >From a user point of view, and from a maintenance point of view, src_configure is very useful. >> c) So the flow will look like: >> >> ... >> src_unpack >> src_prepare >> src_configure >> src_compile >> ... >> >> To me this seems like an unnecessary overgeneralisation. > > It's a better mapping of the things ebuilds do than the current set of > functions. > > The logic is this: lots of ebuilds end up duplicating src_unpack (or, > in future EAPIs, calling 'default') and then adding things to do > preparation work. Experience suggests that the most common reason for > overriding src_unpack is to do preparation work, not to change how > things are unpacked. > Yeah I've always seen src_unpack as being more cogent to preparation of src files, than to actually untarring stuff. So what? Why make a new phase which every new dev has to know about, and we have to provide pre_ and post_ hooks for, when the existing phase covers the usage fine? > (Number-wise... For Exherbo, where the split's already been made, > custom src_prepare functions are three times more common than custom > src_unpack functions. And that figure's significantly lower than what > Gentoo would see, because with exheres-0 'default' functions you don't > need to write a src_prepare if you're merely applying patches.) > Well it's easy enough to auto-apply patches, given a declaration in the ebuild (since files for all versions are in the same dir.) It certainly doesn't need a new phase. >> The *only* potential "benefit" I see here is that at some point of >> time in the nebulous future, it might be possible to tell the PM to >> always skip src_prepare in order to give a system where everything is >> "vanilla". > > Such a system wouldn't be usable... Not all of Gentoo's patches are > non-essential. > So the real, fully-defined, explicit benefit is..
