On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 20:42:20 +0200 Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> [Resending since my first message didn't make it to -dev-announce.] > > The first draft of EAPI 6 is ready. I shall post it as a series of > 22 patches following this message in the gentoo-pms mailing list. > > Please review. The goal is to have the draft ready for approval in the > council's November meeting. Sorry for coming very late on this, but what is the rationale behind setting in stone an 'eapply' different to an 'epatch' that has been widely tested for decades now ? Or even defining eapply in PMS ? I can understand "eapply is a function that applies patches" isn't nice for a spec., but we've already seen in the past gnu patch changing behavior wrt what is an acceptable patch between versions, bsd 'patch' command behaves slightly differently than gnu patch (read: is unusable with epatch), etc. One can argue that gnu patch changing behavior is part of life, but what worries me more is the BSDs: e.g. on gfbsd, 'patch' is bsd patch, 'gpatch' is gnu patch; we use profile.bashrc to alias patch to gpatch for ebuilds, but I don't think profile.bashrc should mess up with what is mandated by PMS. Also, mandating -p1 seems quite limiting: e.g. 'svn diff -rX:Y' extracts -p0 patches by default here. Or when $S is actually a subdir of a repository, this will make standard git format-patch generated patches unusable. Alexis.
