On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:41:32 -0700 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 11:34 AM, David Leverton wrote: > > Zac Medico wrote: > >> Also, maybe apply_user_patches_here should have a special return > >> value if there are no patches to be applied? That way, src_prepare > >> can avoid an eautoreconf call if there are no patches. > > > > Does that imply that every ebuild for an autotools-based package > > would be expected to have an "apply_user_patches_here && > > eautoreconf" line, just in case the user might want to add custom > > patches? It could be exported by autotools.eclass, but even so, > > requiring every autotools ebuild to inherit the eclass even if it > > doesn't have any effect by default seems a bit unfortunate. > > Isn't that just a consequence of how autotools works? Do you have a > better alternative? And it implies autotools on every, even very simple patch. autotools-utils does that much better but everyone likes reinventing wheels. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
