On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:58:34 +0200
Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:12:43 +0200
> Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 12:17:58 +0200
> > Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > >>>>> On Sun, 18 Oct 2015, Michał Górny wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 11:54:40 +0200
> > > > Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > >> So the question is if we should add a sentence like the
> > > >> following to the spec:
> > > >>
> > > >> In EAPIs where it is supported, all ebuilds must run
> > > >> \t{eapply\_user} in the \t{src\_prepare} phase.
> > >
> > > > How about:
> > >
> > > > In EAPIs listed in table blah blah blah, \t{eapply\_user}
> > > > must be called exactly once in the \t{src\_prepare} phase.
> > >
> > > > Which emphasizes that eclass or default may do it instead of
> > > > ebuild.
> > >
> > > Yeah, that's better actually. We need not reference the table
> > > again though, since we do it in the sentence before.
> > >
> > > In EAPIs where it is supported, \t{eapply\_user} must be
> > > called exactly once in the \t{src\_prepare} phase.
> >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > But there is something important we've overlooked: should eclasses
> > that export src_prepare call eapply_user ? I think yes, otherwise
> > they'd make packages inheriting them violate the 'at least once
> > rule'.
>
> Why do you assume I overlooked something?
you're not the center of the world m'dear :)
> I thought exactly of this
> case, and decide that will force developers to finally write sane
> eclasses.
then, care to share how, o great mgorny?
> The same would go for applying PATCHES, except that you can undefine
> PATCHES in the ebuild.
this one is definitely not new
