[gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
* Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net:
The perl-module.eclass must be updated to support EAPI=3 [1] and
a new eclass will be added which does contain some (more or less) useful
stand-alone functions split from the old perl-module.eclass without
exporting phase functions.
Somehow I was sleeping: It's more useful to set EXPORT_FUNCTIONS
conditionally and have all functions in perl-module.eclass.
I think this justifies the elimination of the perl-helper.eclass.
Sorry for the confusion. Hopefully wide awake now.
New perl-helper.eclass:
| # Copyright 1999-2010 Gentoo Foundation
| # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
| # $Header: $
|
| # @DEAD
|
| PERL_EXPORT_PHASE_FUNCTIONS=no
| inherit perl-module
Head of new perl-module.eclass:
http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/perl-overlay.git;a=tree;f=eclass;hb=HEAD
| @@ -12,19 +12,19 @@
| # The perl-module eclass is designed to allow easier installation of perl
| # modules, and their incorporation into the Gentoo Linux system.
|
| -inherit perl-helper eutils base
| +inherit eutils base
| [[ ${CATEGORY} == perl-core ]] inherit alternatives
|
| PERL_EXPF=src_unpack src_compile src_test src_install
|
| case ${EAPI:-0} in
| 0|1)
| - PERL_EXPF=${PERL_EXPF} pkg_setup pkg_preinst pkg_postinst
pkg_prerm pkg_postrm
| + PERL_EXPF+= pkg_setup pkg_preinst pkg_postinst pkg_prerm
pkg_postrm
| ;;
| 2|3)
| - PERL_EXPF=${PERL_EXPF} src_prepare src_configure
| + PERL_EXPF+= src_prepare src_configure
| [[ ${CATEGORY} == perl-core ]] \
| - PERL_EXPF=${PERL_EXPF} pkg_postinst pkg_postrm
| + PERL_EXPF+= pkg_postinst pkg_postrm
|
| case ${GENTOO_DEPEND_ON_PERL:-yes} in
| yes)
| @@ -38,7 +38,17 @@ case ${EAPI:-0} in
| ;;
| esac
|
| -EXPORT_FUNCTIONS ${PERL_EXPF}
| +case ${PERL_EXPORT_PHASE_FUNCTIONS:-yes} in
| + yes)
| + EXPORT_FUNCTIONS ${PERL_EXPF}
| + ;;
| + no)
| + debug-print PERL_EXPORT_PHASE_FUNCTIONS=no
| + ;;
| + *)
| + DEPEND+= PERL_EXPORT_PHASE_FUNCTIONS-UNSUPPORTED
| + ;;
| +esac
|
| DESCRIPTION=Based on the $ECLASS eclass
...
[gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
* James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com: TV == Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net writes: TV There was a reason why the man-pages were removed: I think it was TV collisions protection and perl people use `perldoc` anyway. Perl people -- I'm one -- use man(1); given the differences in usefulness, I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer perldoc(1) over man(1). Please file a bug if you want man pages for all the modules. Thanks
[gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
Hi,
Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net:
find ${S} -type f -name ._* -print0 | while read -rd ''
f ; do einfo Removing AppleDouble encoded Macintosh file: ${f#${S}/}
rm -f ${f}
f=${f#${S}/}
# f=${f//\//\/}
# f=${f//\./\.}
# sed -i /${f}/d ${S}/MANIFEST || die
grep -q ${f} ${S}/MANIFEST \
elog AppleDouble encoded Macintosh file in
MANIFEST: ${f#${S}/} done
}
Are those f= lines commented? And what was their purpose? Can they
be deleted?
if [[ -d ${D}/${VENDOR_LIB} ]] ; then
Haven't checked, but quotes not needed?
V-Li
--
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode
URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
On 12-04-2010 10:07:54 +0200, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
if [[ -d ${D}/${VENDOR_LIB} ]] ; then
Haven't checked, but quotes not needed?
it's within [[ ]], so no.
--
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
MG == Michał Górny gen...@mgorny.alt.pl writes: MG I prefer perldoc over man. And I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer MG keeping two copies of the same docs if generating one from another MG takes less than a second. It takes more than a mere second, and man(1), man.el, woman.el and the like have better UIs than perldoc(1) has. -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
D == Duncan 1i5t5.dun...@cox.net writes: D While you're correct in the ordinary case, keep in mind that this is perl D developer docs we're talking about here -- not ordinary user documentation. Developer docs *are* ordinary user documentation. Section 3 is perhaps the most used section of man, with sections 2 and, depending on platform, one or more of sections 4, 5 or 6 following. D And those that know enough about perl to find the developer documentation D useful should also know how to use perldoc, You are ignoring the fact that having the docs in man is more useful; much easier to use, usable by any man reader. The list goes on. There is simply no *real* benefit to eliding them, it only does harm. People who do not want to install them should specify that preference via a USE flag (-man, perhaps). It would even be OK were the USE flag off by default; but making it impossible to Do The Right Thing w/o editing eclasses every time one syncs is just wrong. -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
TV == Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net writes: TV * James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com: One change the perl eclasses require is elimination of the code which deletes the man pages. Deleting the man pages is /extremely/ rude and should not occur. TV There was a reason why the man-pages were removed: I think it was TV collisions protection and perl people use `perldoc` anyway. Perl people -- I'm one -- use man(1); given the differences in usefulness, I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer perldoc(1) over man(1). TV Do we need a patch to avoid collisions? Do you have it ready and tested? I've never seen any collisions due to installing the man pages. -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
MH == Michael Higgins li...@evolone.org writes: MH Yep. Why have a man page for a perl module? OTOH, if there is something MH that goes in /usr/bin, it should get a man page if there is one. But MH not for the modules themselves -- that's not needed at all. Because man(1) works better than the alternatives; it is the unix way; it is the first thing one types when searching for documentation. The idea that the man pages are somehow uneeded is incomprehensible. -JimC -- James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
[gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
James Cloos posted on Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:27:36 -0400 as excerpted: MH == Michael Higgins li...@evolone.org writes: MH Yep. Why have a man page for a perl module? OTOH, if there is something MH that goes in /usr/bin, it should get a man page if there is one. But MH not for the modules themselves -- that's not needed at all. Because man(1) works better than the alternatives; it is the unix way; it is the first thing one types when searching for documentation. The idea that the man pages are somehow uneeded is incomprehensible. While you're correct in the ordinary case, keep in mind that this is perl developer docs we're talking about here -- not ordinary user documentation. And those that know enough about perl to find the developer documentation useful should also know how to use perldoc, while those that don't know how to use perldoc, aren't likely to find the perl developer manpages of much help, either; they'll be pretty much ordinary users, at least where perl is concerned, and thus if anything, confused and irritated by all those extra useless perl developer manpages. -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:25:27 -0400 James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote: Perl people -- I'm one -- use man(1); given the differences in usefulness, I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer perldoc(1) over man(1). I prefer perldoc over man. And I cannot imagine why anyone would prefer keeping two copies of the same docs if generating one from another takes less than a second. -- Best regards, Michał Górny http://mgorny.alt.pl xmpp:mgo...@jabber.ru signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 12:33:48 +0200 Torsten Veller ml...@veller.net wrote: perl people use `perldoc` anyway. Yep. Why have a man page for a perl module? OTOH, if there is something that goes in /usr/bin, it should get a man page if there is one. But not for the modules themselves -- that's not needed at all. Just my $0.02. -- |\ /|| | ~ ~ | \/ ||---| `|` ? ||ichael | |iggins\^ / michael.higgins[at]evolone[dot]org
[gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
* Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org: It is obvious what many of the functions do (I can read shell, yay!) but it is not obvious to me why they exist or why I would want to call them. Why do I want to delete AppleDouble files? What are dual-life scripts and why do I want to symlink them? Why would I want to delete packfiles? Some documentation would be nice h ere. Absolutely. The perl-team already has a bug for it (#259815). Perl eclass changes are tracked in bug #239510. But I don't think missing documentation is a stopper here. Most of it is copied from perl-modules.eclass. - AppleDouble (name reported by `file`) 268497 [p...@gentoo.org] - Remove ._* files in perl-module_src_prepare 273104 [dev-port...@gentoo.org] - New QA check: installed OSX fork files (if I got the name right) - dual-life scripts scripts installed by dual-life packages (part of dev-lang/perl and also stand-alone in perl-core/). Only relevant for perl-core/ packages. - .packlist something like CONTENTS. [---=| TOFU protection by t-prot: 143 lines snipped |=---]
[gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
* James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com: One change the perl eclasses require is elimination of the code which deletes the man pages. Deleting the man pages is /extremely/ rude and should not occur. There was a reason why the man-pages were removed: I think it was collisions protection and perl people use `perldoc` anyway. Do we need a patch to avoid collisions? Do you have it ready and tested?
[gentoo-dev] Re: perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
On 04/01/2010 07:41 PM, James Cloos wrote: And given that portage inappropriately ignores a fixed eclass in the OVERlay, that means that every time one syncs one must re-patch the offending eclasses. If you want all ebuilds to use eclasses from a given overlay (if available) instead of the eclasses from the same repository, then you should add the following 2 lines to /etc/portage/repos.conf: [DEFAULT] eclass-overrides = local Where local is the contents of /path/to/overlay/profiles/repo_name. -- Jonathan Callen signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
