>>>>> On Sat, 5 Sep 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: > I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency > can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doesn't > change when this moves into the package manager for EAPI6?
So far, the EAPI 6 draft says [1]: eapply_user Takes no arguments. Package managers supporting it apply user-provided patches to the source tree in the current working directory. Exact behaviour is implementation defined and beyond the scope of this specification. Package managers not supporting it must implement the function as a no-op. Only available in EAPIs listed in table [...] as supporting eapply_user. > PMS is more about the content of the ebuilds, so presumably all > package managers could structure how patches are provided by the > user in whatefver way is most consistent with how they already > operate. Exactly, IMHO we should leave the details how this is implemented to the package manager (including the option not to implement it). This is of course open for discussion. Ulrich [1] https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/pms.git/diff/pkg-mgr-commands.tex?h=eapi-6&id=c82042d29a03defbb639050e5b3d265f74cbbee6
pgpvhuGFBKwym.pgp
Description: PGP signature
