On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:06:31 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>> That is not possible without the agreement of the eclass maintainers.
>> So you cannot just "ban" an eclass.
>
> QA certainly can, and should. Or failing that, the Council can step in.
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:56:29 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal wrote:
> Dne St 3. dubna 2013 16:29:48, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200
> > hasufell wrote:
> >
> > > You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:06:31 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> On 04/03/2013 05:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell
> > wrote:
> >> You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass
> >> already uses that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/03/2013 05:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell
> wrote:
>> You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass
>> already uses that name with epatch.
>
> base.eclass should have died a horrible
Dne St 3. dubna 2013 16:29:48, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200
> hasufell wrote:
>
> > You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already
> > uses that name with epatch.
>
>
> base.eclass sh
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:14:37 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> Therefore, I ask you: how should we name the new (and simpler) patch
> applying function which will be provided in EAPI 6?
My propositions:
- apply_patches ...
- apply_user_patches
Where I think we used the latter name when discussing add
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200
hasufell wrote:
> You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already
> uses that name with epatch.
base.eclass should have died a horrible death a long time ago. A new
EAPI is an excellent opport
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:56:09AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> There was a slight mis-understanding between me and ulm.
>
> On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:14:37 +0200
> Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > a) patch files can be specified directly or through a directory
> >in which *all* files will be applied i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already
uses that name with epatch.
And I can't say I am thrilled about the idea that we duplicate
functionality again. It's already confusing enough the way it is (I
can tell, because I r
There was a slight mis-understanding between me and ulm.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:14:37 +0200
Michał Górny wrote:
> a) patch files can be specified directly or through a directory
>in which *all* files will be applied in lexical order,
Correction: files which match '*.patch' and '*.diff'. This
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:40:31 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> Michał Górny schrieb:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Currently, the multilib-build eclass uses abi_* constants only for USE
> > flags and only ${ABI} is exported to the function. This is bad since it
> > basically requires a reverse mapping of ABI->a
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:40:31 +0200
Thomas Sachau wrote:
> You know, that multilib-portage does use MULTILIB_ABI as USE-expanded
> variable? Using exactly the same in the eclass will call for collision
> issues.
I doubt very many people know that, since there's still no spec for the
changes in mul
Michał Górny schrieb:
> Hello,
>
> Currently, the multilib-build eclass uses abi_* constants only for USE
> flags and only ${ABI} is exported to the function. This is bad since it
> basically requires a reverse mapping of ABI->abi_* values, often
> inlined as ${ABI} checks.
>
> The patches which
Hello all,
Wrt bug #463692 [1] we'd like to add a default src_prepare() in EAPI 6,
with PATCHES array and user patches support. For that reason, I've
requested in bug #463768 [2], that the function used to apply
the patches would be public -- so that users and eclasses could use it
consequently.
14 matches
Mail list logo