On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:15:35 +0000 (UTC)
Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:

> Zac Medico posted on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 18:41:21 -0700 as excerpted:
> 
> > On 04/26/2012 03:08 PM, Duncan wrote:
> >> Zac Medico posted on Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:21:02 -0700 as excerpted:
> >>> Also, don't forget to consider the possibility of interference
> >>> between FEATURES=userpatch and epatch_user (applying same patches
> >>> twice).
> >>
> >> The existing phaselock-file solution should continue to work
> >> there. 
> 
> > Having the package manager interact with an eclass function like
> > epatch_user is ugly, and it's unnecessary since we can pull all of
> > the pieces into the package manager in EAPI 5. Any eclasses that
> > currently call epatch_user can have a conditional like this:
> > 
> >    if has $EAPI 0 1 2 3 4 ; then
> >      epatch_user
> >    else
> >      apply_user_patches_here
> >    fi
> 
> But that doesn't solve the problem of making it globally available,
> since it only applies to packages/eclasses that already call
> epatch_user for EAPIs thru current EAPI-4.
> 
> In ordered to make it globally available, it cannot simply be an
> EAPI-5 thing, it must apply to all current ebuilds whether they (or
> an inherited eclass) call epatch_user or not.  Which means that
> conflict with the existing epatch_user is unavoidable, since it will
> either try to run twice where it's already called, or it won't run at
> all where it's not.
> 
> Tho I guess one solution to that would be to change the name of the 
> patches dir for the new version, calling it /etc/portage/patches2/ or 
> some such.  Another solution could be to make the existing
> epatch_user call a no-op, and force post-src-prepare invocation on
> EAPIs 1-4.
> 
> But both of these have problems in that they nullify the work done in 
> existing ebuilds to locate the call correctly, before eautoreconf or 
> whatever.

We could finally decide it'll be a Portage internal feature, and modify
epatch_user() to export some Portage-specific indication that user
patches were applied.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to