On 09/05/2015 02:42 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> 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. >
Right, I don't even see a reason to make the patch location configurable once it is implemented in package managers. This is really just about eutils.eclass.
