On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200 Alexis Ballier <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200 > Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200 > > > Ulrich Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> So the question is if we should add a sentence like the following > > >> to the spec: > > >> > > >> In EAPIs where it is supported, all ebuilds must run > > >> \t{eapply\_user} in the \t{src\_prepare} phase. > > > > > How about: > > > > > In EAPIs listed in table blah blah blah, \t{eapply\_user} must > > > be called exactly once in the \t{src\_prepare} phase. > > > > > Which emphasizes that eclass or default may do it instead of > > > ebuild. > > > > Yeah, that's better actually. We need not reference the table again > > though, since we do it in the sentence before. > > > > In EAPIs where it is supported, \t{eapply\_user} must be called > > exactly once in the \t{src\_prepare} phase. > > > +1 > > But there is something important we've overlooked: should eclasses that > export src_prepare call eapply_user ? I think yes, otherwise they'd > make packages inheriting them violate the 'at least once rule'. Why do you assume I overlooked something? I thought exactly of this case, and decide that will force developers to finally write sane eclasses. The same would go for applying PATCHES, except that you can undefine PATCHES in the ebuild. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpx1sXnIQ69V.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
