On Thursday 07 July 2005 03:14, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Roy Marples wrote:[Wed Jul 06 2005, 08:51:17PM EDT]
>
> > ebuilds could be changed over time - unless I'm missing something
> > basic here ..
>
> Yes, you're missing the default functions. Presently src_compile does
> (effectively) "econf &
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 15:25 +0100, twofourtysix wrote:
> Whilst you're at it... Why not split unpack up into, say, unpack and
> prepare? Make src_unpack's default stay the same and use src_prepare
> for patches and autotools things? This will avoid the pointless
> duplication of the default src_unp
On 07/07/05, Sven Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm writing this mail to bring you a thought we had over on freenode in
> the #gentoo-portage channel. We would like to split up src_compile. The
> new src_configure should just do the econf part and src_compile should
> do the emake part. This
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 08:08 +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> Jonathan Smith wrote:
> > you could simply make the default:
> >
> > src_configure() {
> > [ -f ./configure ] && econf || die
> > }
>
>
> No need, this will do fine as a default:
>
> src_configure() {
> econf || die
> }
>
> Sin
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 02:04 +0200, Sven Wegener wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I'm writing this mail to bring you a thought we had over on freenode in
> the #gentoo-portage channel. We would like to split up src_compile. The
> new src_configure should just do the econf part and src_compile should
> do the e
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 02:04 +0200, Sven Wegener wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I'm writing this mail to bring you a thought we had over on freenode in
> the #gentoo-portage channel. We would like to split up src_compile. The
> new src_configure should just do the econf part and src_compile should
> do the e
On 07/07/05, Daniel Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> src_configure() {
> econf || die
> }
>
> Since econf already checks for a configure script and does nothing if it can't
> find one...
Yours might do. The one I have in /usr/sbin/ebuild.sh from portage
2.0.51.22-r1 says this:
econf()
Jonathan Smith wrote:
> you could simply make the default:
>
> src_configure() {
> [ -f ./configure ] && econf || die
> }
No need, this will do fine as a default:
src_configure() {
econf || die
}
Since econf already checks for a configure script and does nothing if it can't
find
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
That will be very very interesting but... but not everything uses ./configure,
so we should add a bunch of dummy src_configure, and a call to econf || die
"" for those packages not fixed to use that will return a bunch of erroneous
packages not compiling.
I
On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 04:32:32AM +0200, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> Sure, spliting that will produce a bit of code duplication. It's
> a bit less readable imho, but that's really just a cosmetic
> issue:
>
> src_configure() {
>
On Thu, 7 Jul 2005 02:04:04 +0200
Sven Wegener <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We would like to split up src_compile. The new src_configure
> should just do the econf part and src_compile should do the
> emake part.
Just by curiosity, i've run a grep on the tree to count occurences
of "^[[:space:]]*
Aron Griffis wrote:
It would be less annoying if you wouldn't quote the entire previous
email in your replies.
Ehhe, my apologies...I've been spoiled by Gmail's hiding of previous emails.
Joshua Baergen
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Roy Marples wrote: [Wed Jul 06 2005, 08:51:17PM EDT]
> ebuilds could be changed over time - unless I'm missing something basic
> here ..
Yes, you're missing the default functions. Presently src_compile does
(effectively) "econf && emake" if the function isn't defined. That
would be broken i
Joshua Baergen wrote: [Wed Jul 06 2005, 08:43:34PM EDT]
> P.S. I tried sending this earlier but my client barfed, so I apologize
> if it ends up double.
It would be less annoying if you wouldn't quote the entire previous
email in your replies.
Regards,
Aron
--
Aron Griffis
Gentoo Linux Develo
On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 20:14 -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Sven Wegener wrote: [Wed Jul 06 2005, 08:04:04PM EDT]
> > I'm writing this mail to bring you a thought we had over on freenode
> > in the #gentoo-portage channel. We would like to split up
> > src_compile. The new src_configure should just
Jonathan Smith wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Thursday 07 July 2005 02:04, Sven Wegener wrote:
We would like to split up src_compile. The
new src_configure should just do the econf part and src_compile should
do the emake part
On Thursday 07 July 2005 02:27, Jonathan Smith wrote:
> src_configure() {
> [ -f ./configure ] && econf || die
> }
I'm not still convinced about this.
--
Diego "Flameeyes" Pettenò
Gentoo Developer - http://dev.gentoo.org/~flameeyes/
(Gentoo/FreeBSD, Video, Gentoo/AMD64, Sound, PAM)
pgprfA
Jonathan Smith wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Thursday 07 July 2005 02:04, Sven Wegener wrote:
We would like to split up src_compile. The
new src_configure should just do the econf part and src_compile should
do the emake part
On Wednesday 06 July 2005 08:27 pm, Jonathan Smith wrote:
> you could simply make the default:
>
> src_configure() {
> [ -f ./configure ] && econf || die
> }
well you cant because then die would be called if ./configure isnt a file but
i think that's irrelevant to the point you're trying to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sven Wegener wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I'm writing this mail to bring you a thought we had over on freenode in
> the #gentoo-portage channel. We would like to split up src_compile. The
> new src_configure should just do the econf part and src_compile shoul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> On Thursday 07 July 2005 02:04, Sven Wegener wrote:
>
>>We would like to split up src_compile. The
>>new src_configure should just do the econf part and src_compile should
>>do the emake part.
>
> That will be very
On Wed, Jul 06, 2005 at 08:14:55PM -0400, Aron Griffis wrote:
> Sven Wegener wrote: [Wed Jul 06 2005, 08:04:04PM EDT]
> > I'm writing this mail to bring you a thought we had over on freenode
> > in the #gentoo-portage channel. We would like to split up
> > src_compile. The new src_configure shoul
On Thursday 07 July 2005 02:04, Sven Wegener wrote:
> We would like to split up src_compile. The
> new src_configure should just do the econf part and src_compile should
> do the emake part.
That will be very very interesting but... but not everything uses ./configure,
so we should add a bunch of
Sven Wegener wrote: [Wed Jul 06 2005, 08:04:04PM EDT]
> I'm writing this mail to bring you a thought we had over on freenode
> in the #gentoo-portage channel. We would like to split up
> src_compile. The new src_configure should just do the econf part and
> src_compile should do the emake part.
Hi all!
I'm writing this mail to bring you a thought we had over on freenode in
the #gentoo-portage channel. We would like to split up src_compile. The
new src_configure should just do the econf part and src_compile should
do the emake part. This represents the general 3-step[1] installation in
a
25 matches
Mail list logo
