On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:05 AM, hasufell <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > If you are messing with the build system in a patch, there is no > guarantee that eautoreconf will be enough. It might or might not be true > (see net-irc/hexchat for an example). Are we going to run eautoreconf > unconditionally then (which is exceptionally bad)?
Nope. It isn't perfect, and I'm fine with that. > Maybe the ebuild > author doesn't even provide a live ebuild and there's no example for > doing the right thing wrt random build systems patches. How about other > build systems? You simply cannot do this properly. I think you can do it properly. I don't think you can do it in a manner that is guaranteed to never fail. IMO there is a difference. > > I think we are encouraging bad practice with this feature by making it > part of PMS, causing users to file bugs because their random patches > don't work with someones ebuilds. Such bugs can be closed. The intent is to provide a useful feature to users, not to support the resulting binaries. This isn't magic - it is a tool for those who know how to use it, much like the rest of Gentoo. Forking ebuilds is far more hassle, even if it is more powerful. > If people need to hack on ebuilds, there are already numerous ways to do > that, including doing it properly. Why add another one that is still not > consistently thought through? I'm not sure what makes this "not consistently thought through." The fact is that every objection you're raising was raised the first time this came up. I at least was well aware of all of them when I voted to add this to EAPI6. The issue seemingly isn't that it wasn't thought through, but rather that those who did think through it didn't agree with you on the decision. That's ok - we'll never agree on everything. Believe it or not it is possible for two intelligent people to thoughtfully consider the same data and come to different decisions. This isn't deductive logic, and it isn't science until something has been tried. -- Rich
