On 03/07/2010 11:44 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 07 March 2010 14:08:29 Petteri Räty wrote:
>> On 03/07/2010 08:36 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On Sunday 07 March 2010 13:31:56 Petteri Räty wrote:
>>>> On 03/07/2010 07:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday 06 March 2010 02:11:15 Petteri Räty wrote:
>>>>>> On 03/05/2010 08:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>>>>>> sometimes i have optional patches (ignoring the "patches should
>>>>>>> always be applied") where autotools should be run. always
>>>>>>> inheriting autotools is currently annoying because it always adds
>>>>>>> the related dependencies. USE based inherits are obviously out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so unless there's some burgeoning standard i'm not aware of, below is
>>>>>>> what i have in mind. packages set AUTOTOOLS_AUTO_DEPEND to "no"
>>>>>>> before inheriting autotools.eclass and that allows them to put
>>>>>>> ${AUTOTOOLS_DEPEND} behind a USE flag in their own DEPEND string.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What we use in Java is JAVA_PKG_OPT_USE to declare what use flag the
>>>>>> DEPENDs should be under. This approach doesn't allow the ebuild
>>>>>> maintainer to forget adding the depends.
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm more inclined towards Jonathan's opinion, so ive kept the proposed
>>>>> behavior (plus a fix from Torsten).
>>>>
>>>> And what about my latest response to him?
>>>
>>> considering your proposal saves ${FOO} in DEPEND, it hasnt changed my
>>> opinion
>>
>> Why would it be better to require ebuild writers to have do it
>> themselves instead of the eclass automatically taking care of it?
>
> as Jonathan mentioned, it gives explicit control via multiple USE flags which
> your way does not
> -mikeI already said both can be implemented. Regards, Petteri
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
