Hello all,
Wrt bug #463692 [1] we'd like to add a default src_prepare() in EAPI 6,
with PATCHES array and user patches support. For that reason, I've
requested in bug #463768 [2], that the function used to apply
the patches would be public -- so that users and eclasses could use it
consequently.
There was a slight mis-understanding between me and ulm.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:14:37 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
a) patch files can be specified directly or through a directory
in which *all* files will be applied in lexical order,
Correction: files which match '*.patch'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already
uses that name with epatch.
And I can't say I am thrilled about the idea that we duplicate
functionality again. It's already confusing enough the way it is (I
can tell, because I
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:56:09AM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
There was a slight mis-understanding between me and ulm.
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:14:37 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
a) patch files can be specified directly or through a directory
in which *all* files will be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already
uses that name with epatch.
base.eclass should have died a horrible death a long time ago. A new
EAPI is
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 11:14:37 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
Therefore, I ask you: how should we name the new (and simpler) patch
applying function which will be provided in EAPI 6?
My propositions:
- apply_patches ...
- apply_user_patches
Where I think we used the latter name
Dne St 3. dubna 2013 16:29:48, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already
uses that name with epatch.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/03/2013 05:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass
already uses that name with epatch.
base.eclass should have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:06:31 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
On 04/03/2013 05:29 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org
wrote:
You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:56:29 +0200
Tomáš Chvátal tomas.chva...@gmail.com wrote:
Dne St 3. dubna 2013 16:29:48, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a):
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
You also have to rename
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 19:06:31 +0200
hasufell hasuf...@gentoo.org wrote:
That is not possible without the agreement of the eclass maintainers.
So you cannot just ban an eclass.
QA certainly can, and should.
11 matches
Mail list logo
