On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 20:19:12 +0200 Alexis Ballier <aball...@gentoo.org> wrote: > what I was trying to understand is what is the usefulness of eapply > vs epatch
The point of eapply is that it's inside the package manager, so it can
safely be used by default phase functions, for user patches, etc.
Rather than it being a direct copy of the epatch API, we took this as
an opportunity to tidy up the behaviour to make it do something easy to
understand and sensible, rather than being full of scary voodoo
heuristics which are rarely necessary (and when they are, fixing your
patches is easy) and which have weird effects that you don't know
about until it's too late.
Of course, this is part of the larger debate on "as much as possible in
the PM" versus "as much as possible in the tree". The main "in the PM"
argument is "less breakage and better testing"; the main "in the tree"
argument is that things going spectacularly wrong for users every now
and again is fine because it lets developers have new useless toys
slightly faster. (This is a totally unbiased and entirely comprehensive
summary of the debate.)
> or simply using 'epatch "${PATCHES[@]}"' when proper patches do not
> fit in what you call 'all the useful features': I haven't seen any,
> so that I know where to stand on using that feature or not. It is
> simply inferior and deemed unfixable until next EAPI.
It would be nice if eutils defined epatch to die for EAPI 6...
--
Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
