On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 22:08:38 +0200 Alexis Ballier <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:42:20 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > [Resending since my first message didn't make it to -dev-announce.] > > > > The first draft of EAPI 6 is ready. I shall post it as a series of > > 22 patches following this message in the gentoo-pms mailing list. > > > > Please review. The goal is to have the draft ready for approval in the > > council's November meeting. > > Sorry for coming very late on this, but what is the rationale behind > setting in stone an 'eapply' different to an 'epatch' that has been > widely tested for decades now ? Or even defining eapply in PMS ? How many decades, exactly? ;-) > I can understand "eapply is a function that applies patches" isn't nice > for a spec., but we've already seen in the past gnu patch changing > behavior wrt what is an acceptable patch between versions, bsd 'patch' > command behaves slightly differently than gnu patch (read: is unusable > with epatch), etc. > One can argue that gnu patch changing behavior is part of life, but > what worries me more is the BSDs: e.g. on gfbsd, 'patch' is bsd patch, > 'gpatch' is gnu patch; we use profile.bashrc to alias patch to gpatch > for ebuilds, but I don't think profile.bashrc should mess up with what > is mandated by PMS. I think the goal is to actually require GNU patch, likely even a specific version of it. > Also, mandating -p1 seems quite limiting: e.g. 'svn diff -rX:Y' extracts > -p0 patches by default here. Or when $S is actually a subdir of a > repository, this will make standard git format-patch generated patches > unusable. The poor man's autodetection implemented in epatch was... well, poor. It had its corner cases when it failed hard, it was complex and made error handling PITA (which patch invocation really failed?!). It's trivial to change patch to -p1 (I think patchutils can do that). It's beneficial to keep patches with predictable directory structure. And after all, you can use 'eapply -pN' explicitly. And yes, I know you hate having to think instead of having some random hidden implicit, likely-to-fail logic do it for you. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpBWPeHpdCYZ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
