On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:09:41 +0200
Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:04:22 +0200
> Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> Like not redefining src_prepare() all the time. Hmm, or maybe I was
> wrong and it won't be this easy ;-P. But that's probably a problem to
> be solved on eclass level, not PMS level.
maybe, maybe not
so far we have one, unperfect, solution for the pms level; i find the
'exactly once' rule nice & clear, but i cannot get my mind on how it
can be done at eclass level...
