Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Rich Freeman
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.

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Michał Górny
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
-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

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread hasufell
-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

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Michał Górny
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
-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

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread William Hubbs
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread hasufell
-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

Re: [gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Michał Górny
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] multilib-build: use MULTILIB_ABI for eclass-specific ABI value

2013-04-03 Thread Michał Górny
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] multilib-build: use MULTILIB_ABI for eclass-specific ABI value

2013-04-03 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
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

Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCHES] multilib-build: use MULTILIB_ABI for eclass-specific ABI value

2013-04-03 Thread Thomas Sachau
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

[gentoo-dev] How shall we name the EAPI 6 patch applying function?

2013-04-03 Thread Michał Górny
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.