On Wednesday 13 February 2008 20:30:30 Petteri Räty wrote:
> > How can I use PATCHES without quoting issues?
>
> Attached is a patch that fixes this.
So is someone going to fix epatch too? Otherwise it is rather moot.
--
Bo Andresen
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed messag
Petteri Räty wrote:
Attached is a patch that fixes this.
Arrays? How non-POSIX1
Anyway, why don't we instead discuss what phases to add to next EAPI, so
we can avoid these hacks :)
--
Vlastimil Babka (Caster)
Gentoo/Java
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Samuli Suominen kirjoitti:
And if you can't run eautoreconf but instead one of specific commands,
eautoconf, eautomake..
Or what if you need to run AT_M4DIR="/path/to/macros" eautoreconf?
Or when you are about to remove eautoreconf, spot that fbsd is
keyworded and need to substitute it with
Matthias Schwarzott kirjoitti:
How can I use PATCHESwithout quoting issues?
Attached is a patch that fixes this.
Regards,
Petteri
Index: base.eclass
===
RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/eclass/base.eclass,v
retrieving revis
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:22 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
> eautoreconf?
>
> so instead of
>
> src_unpack() {
> unpack ${A}
> cd "${A}"
> eautoreconf
> }
>
> would just add
>
> EAUTORECONF="
В Срд, 13/02/2008 в 13:22 +0100, Matthias Schwarzott пишет:
> How can I use PATCHES without quoting issues?
>
> default is this (when not using relative pathes):
> PATCHES="${FILESDIR}/p1.diff ${FILESDIR}/p2.diff"
You can not. This should be fixed like we did for font.eclass (bug
201834). BTW, k
On Mittwoch, 13. Februar 2008, Petteri Räty wrote:
> Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
> > On 13-02-2008 08:50:19 +0100, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> >> Petteri Räty a écrit :
> >>> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
> >>> eautoreconf?
> >>
> >> In most of the ebuilds where we need
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:22 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
> eautoreconf?
>
> so instead of
>
> src_unpack() {
> unpack ${A}
> cd "${A}"
> eautoreconf
> }
>
> would just add
>
> EAUTORECONF="
Alec Warner kirjoitti:
The former is much clearer...I don't see the gain... also in the
former example you neglected to inherit autotools ;)
That would happen conditionally in base.eclass
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
I think it should not be added as it hides something quite important.
- it takes a lot of time on most platforms I run
- it may break (especially during bootstrapping, eautoreconfs are hell)
- it may introduce extra deps/caution (e.g. gettext macros being available)
So
Fabian Groffen kirjoitti:
On 13-02-2008 08:50:19 +0100, Rémi Cardona wrote:
Petteri Räty a écrit :
What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
eautoreconf?
In most of the ebuilds where we need to run eautoreconf, we usually apply
patches. I can't remember of an ebuild w
On 13-02-2008 08:50:19 +0100, Rémi Cardona wrote:
> Petteri Räty a écrit :
>> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
>> eautoreconf?
> In most of the ebuilds where we need to run eautoreconf, we usually apply
> patches. I can't remember of an ebuild where we just run e
Petteri Räty a écrit :
What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
eautoreconf?
*puts on Gnome hat*
In most of the ebuilds where we need to run eautoreconf, we usually
apply patches. I can't remember of an ebuild where we just run
eautoreconf on its own.
In the end, t
On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 01:44:22 +0200
Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
> eautoreconf?
Isn't base.eclass considered pretty much dead and to be avoided? It's a
throwback to how eclasses were originally going to work, and it doe
On 2/12/08, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
> eautoreconf?
>
> so instead of
>
> src_unpack() {
> unpack ${A}
> cd "${A}"
> eautoreconf
> }
>
> would just add
>
> EAUTORECONF="yes"
> inherit base
Th
On Feb 13, 2008 10:44 AM, Petteri Räty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
> eautoreconf?
>
> so instead of
>
> src_unpack() {
>unpack ${A}
>cd "${A}"
>eautoreconf
> }
>
> would just add
>
> EAUTORECONF="yes"
> inhe
What do you think about adding support to base.eclass for running
eautoreconf?
so instead of
src_unpack() {
unpack ${A}
cd "${A}"
eautoreconf
}
would just add
EAUTORECONF="yes"
inherit base
Regards,
Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
17 matches
Mail list logo
