Dnia 2013-08-18, o godz. 18:39:56
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
3. So far, we don't have a good name for the function.
eapply.
- consistent with 'git apply',
- short,
- e* prefix,
- no known collisions.
I wouldn't call it perfect since the name may be a little unclear.
However,
On 27 August 2013 22:14, Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Dnia 2013-08-18, o godz. 18:39:56
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
3. So far, we don't have a good name for the function.
eapply.
- consistent with 'git apply',
- short,
- e* prefix,
- no known collisions.
I
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013, Michał Górny wrote:
3. So far, we don't have a good name for the function.
eapply.
+1
Hi all,
For EAPI 6, introduction of a patch applying function to the package
manager itself is being discussed. This would serve two purposes:
- support for PATCHES variable in a default src_install phase
- a function to apply user patches
In bug 463768 the conclusion so far was that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/18/2013 12:39 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
Hi all,
For EAPI 6, introduction of a patch applying function to the package
manager itself is being discussed. This would serve two purposes:
- support for PATCHES variable in a default src_install
On Sun, 18 Aug 2013, Rick Zero Chaos Farina wrote:
- support for PATCHES variable in a default src_install phase
Isn't src_install a bit late for most patches?
This should read src_prepare, of course. Thanks.
Ulrich
On 08/18/2013 12:39 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
The current epatch() would remain available in eutils.eclass for cases
where its more advanced modes of operation are needed.
...
2. Should the function do automatic -p* detection, or should it
default to -p1? Both would be overridable by an
Dnia 2013-08-18, o godz. 18:39:56
Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org napisał(a):
2. Should the function do automatic -p* detection, or should it
default to -p1? Both would be overridable by an explicit -p*
option. There are good arguments for either variant (see the
above-mentioned bug).
