Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPIs 0 and 1?

2011-01-03 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 16:46 Fri 31 Dec , "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > On 12/31/10 12:13 PM, Petteri Räty wrote: > > EAPI 0 might stick around for quite a while but for example deprecating > > EAPI 1 shouldn't be as hard. > > That seems also to be a safe first step. EAPI-1 ebuilds were at least > written with EAP

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:16:13 +0100 Thomas Sachau wrote: > src_unpack() { > unpack ${A} > mv *-${PN}-* "${S}" > } > > This saves a line and does not require the redefinition of S inside > the function. It should probably die() though. I've looked at opera tarballs again, and in fact

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:37:45 +0200 Samuli Suominen wrote: > > As far as I can tell, the chapter does not mention S, but it could > > be more specific. Don't see why it should, though. > Chapter 8.3.: Optional Ebuild Defined Variables. It's the last one in > the list. Missed that. Thanks for poi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 01/03/2011 09:31 PM, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:40:57 +0200 > Samuli Suominen wrote: > >> Quoting PMS, Chapter 8: >> >> "All ebuild-defined variables discussed in this chapter must be >> defined independently of any system, profile or tree dependent data, >> and must not va

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:40:57 +0200 Samuli Suominen wrote: > Quoting PMS, Chapter 8: > > "All ebuild-defined variables discussed in this chapter must be > defined independently of any system, profile or tree dependent data, > and must not vary depending upon the ebuild phase." > > http://git.ove

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 01/03/2011 08:16 PM, Thomas Sachau wrote: > Am 03.01.2011 15:40, schrieb Samuli Suominen: >> Quoting PMS, Chapter 8: >> >> "All ebuild-defined variables discussed in this chapter must be defined >> independently of any system, profile or tree dependent data, and must >> not vary depending upon t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Thomas Sachau
Am 03.01.2011 15:40, schrieb Samuli Suominen: > Quoting PMS, Chapter 8: > > "All ebuild-defined variables discussed in this chapter must be defined > independently of any system, profile or tree dependent data, and must > not vary depending upon the ebuild phase." > > http://git.overlays.gentoo.o

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Brian Harring
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 04:15:01PM +0100, Thomas Kahle wrote: > On 17:02 Mon 03 Jan , Alex Alexander wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 04:40:57PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > > Quoting PMS, Chapter 8: > > > > > > This is very inconvinent rule for example, github tarballs where the > > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Can a bash script source ebuild functions?

2011-01-03 Thread Kfir Lavi
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > On 01/03/2011 04:38 PM, Kfir Lavi wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to adapt my script that I run in the post install section > > inside an ebuild, to source some functions like elog and such. > > > > Is it possible? > > > > Regards, > > Kfir

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Petteri Räty
On 01/03/2011 04:40 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote: > Quoting PMS, Chapter 8: > > "All ebuild-defined variables discussed in this chapter must be defined > independently of any system, profile or tree dependent data, and must > not vary depending upon the ebuild phase." > > http://git.overlays.gentoo.

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Thomas Kahle
On 17:02 Mon 03 Jan , Alex Alexander wrote: > On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 04:40:57PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: > > Quoting PMS, Chapter 8: > > > > This is very inconvinent rule for example, github tarballs where the > > directory changes with every release. I've used this: > > > > src_unpack(

Re: [gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Alex Alexander
On Mon, Jan 03, 2011 at 04:40:57PM +0200, Samuli Suominen wrote: > Quoting PMS, Chapter 8: > > "All ebuild-defined variables discussed in this chapter must be defined > independently of any system, profile or tree dependent data, and must > not vary depending upon the ebuild phase." > > http://gi

Re: [gentoo-dev] Can a bash script source ebuild functions?

2011-01-03 Thread Samuli Suominen
On 01/03/2011 04:38 PM, Kfir Lavi wrote: > Hi, > I would like to adapt my script that I run in the post install section > inside an ebuild, to source some functions like elog and such. > > Is it possible? > > Regards, > Kfir I don't know about elog, but you can get einfo with: #!/bin/bash . /e

[gentoo-dev] Defining S= from ebuild phase, src_unpack() ?

2011-01-03 Thread Samuli Suominen
Quoting PMS, Chapter 8: "All ebuild-defined variables discussed in this chapter must be defined independently of any system, profile or tree dependent data, and must not vary depending upon the ebuild phase." http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/pms.git;a=blob_plain;f=ebuild-vars.tex;hb=

[gentoo-dev] Can a bash script source ebuild functions?

2011-01-03 Thread Kfir Lavi
Hi, I would like to adapt my script that I run in the post install section inside an ebuild, to source some functions like elog and such. Is it possible? Regards, Kfir

Re: [gentoo-dev] Deprecate EAPIs 1 and 2?

2011-01-03 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Sun, 02 Jan 2011 18:02:48 +0200 Petteri Räty wrote: > It's quite likely that if you are currently on a system with Portage > that does not understand EAPI 1 there's so many obstacles along the > upgrade path that a clean install makes more sense. Maybe someone is > willing to test this so that