On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 17:22:10 +0200 hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 10/17/2015 03:07 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > >>>>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2015, hasufell wrote: > > > >> And still doesn't give sufficient control to the user. Documenting > >> proper hooks is more useful. > > > > Nothing prevents the PM from implementing eapply_user() as a hook. > > > > Whether that will be the case is undefined. > > My points about eapply_user() are: > * may not be implemented by a given PM at all dont use such a pm if you care :) > * only works for EAPI=6 and not for previous EAPIs guess that's why it's added to eapi6 :p > * for previous EAPIS epatch_user is not consistently used for the > whole tree and cannot be relied upon ditto > * the entry point is defined by the ebuild, not by the user, so less > control (e.g. there are cases where you would even want to apply > patches pre_src_compile) that's the point actually; if you want pre_src_compile patches, just use a hook indeed > * requires fixing a lot of ebuilds with the chance of introducing > "bugs", because eapply_user is called in a weird place oh my god :) > * unreliable for overlays (either because they don't call eapply_user, > do it wrong, use an older EAPI or do other funky stuff) ditto > * configuration format/locations will be dictated by the PM, which may > or may not be sufficient for the user same as hooks [...] > But if we follow simplicity, it makes sense to just drop this idea, > since there already is a solution that works consistently and in the > way the user intends. there are cases where simplicity isn't enough
