Bug 72206 – Manual page for ruby.eclass

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Portage Development

[Description Aaron Walker (RETIRED) 2004-11-23 02:18:50 UTC]

attached.

[Comment 1 Aaron Walker (RETIRED) 2004-11-23 02:19:10 UTC]

Created attachment 44539 [details]
ruby.eclass.5

[Comment 2 Mamoru KOMACHI (RETIRED) 2004-11-24 18:39:38 UTC]

Thanks for writing the manpage. After reading
the FUNCTIONS section, I updated ruby_emake 
to accept ${MAKEOPTS} and ${EXTRA_EMAKE}. 
(I didn't add ${RUBY_EMAKE} this time because 
I don't think any ebuild will change this var at the 
moment) Thanks for the input. Would you 
update the manpage accordingly? Everything
else looks fine.

[Comment 3 Aaron Walker (RETIRED) 2004-11-25 02:49:30 UTC]

usata,
Are ruby_econf, ruby_emake, erubydoc, and ruby_einstall used anywhere besides ruby_src_compile and ruby_src_install?   In other words, were they meant to be used by ebuilds?  If not then I will remove them.

Now that you've modified ruby_emake() to respect $MAKEOPTS and $EXTRA_EMAKE, I'm not really sure what to put for the function description, since afaics that was the only thing that distinguished it from emake.

[Comment 4 Mamoru KOMACHI (RETIRED) 2004-11-25 03:23:25 UTC]

I cannot say which function is used in ebuild and 
which isn't because they are wrappers and nearly 
every ruby  ebuild use them. If you inherit ruby and 
write "econf", ruby's econf will be called. 

Also, erubydoc is used in several ebuilds, so they all
are meant to be used in ebuilds. (Not explicitly by
"ruby_econf" but "econf")

The difference between ruby_emake and emake is 
that ruby_emake detects Makefile named "makefiles" 
in addition to the default "GNUmakefile", "makefile" 
and "Makefile".

(I cannot remember but some ruby packages
definitely use "makefiles" for Makefile name)

[Comment 5 Aaron Walker (RETIRED) 2004-11-25 05:16:34 UTC]

I know that they are *implicitly* used via ruby_src_{compile,install}.  I probably should've specified "explicit use" in my question ;p   Asked in another way, does the ruby team consider those functions "for internal use only" by the eclass?  If so, I'll remove those functions.  If not, I'll fix the ruby_emake snippet and repost it.

[Comment 6 Mamoru KOMACHI (RETIRED) 2004-11-25 08:57:45 UTC]

Ah, okay. As for explicit use, only erubydoc and ruby_einstall
would be useful (and actually used in several ruby ebuilds) for
writing ebuilds. 

ruby_emake and ruby_econf are considered to be used within 
ruby_src_compile(). If you need something for econf/emake, 
you can use ${RUBY_ECONF} to pass extra argument to 
ruby_econf, and "ruby_src_compile foo bar" syntax to pass 
"foo bar" to ruby_emake. 

Of course in this case you can write
src_compile() {
    econf || die
    emake foo bar || die
}
but I do not want to advertise ruby_econf strongly
because many think econf executes "./configure blah"
and ruby_econf breaks this assumption. (The majority
of ruby packages have extconf.rb or setup.rb for
configure script)

To conclude, ruby_econf and ruby_emake could be
omitted from the manpage.

[Comment 7 Aaron Walker (RETIRED) 2004-11-26 03:56:24 UTC]

Created attachment 44769 [details]
ruby.eclass.5

revised.

[Comment 8 Mamoru KOMACHI (RETIRED) 2004-11-28 19:00:21 UTC]

Thanks for the update. prepall is also an internal function
which is not intended to be redefined in any ebuilds,
so if you remove internal functions please remove
prepall as well. (I should have noticed that earlier, sorry)

[Comment 9 Aaron Walker (RETIRED) 2004-11-29 02:07:18 UTC]

Created attachment 44917 [details]
ruby.eclass.5

fixed (again ;p).

[Comment 10 SpanKY 2004-11-30 15:42:38 UTC]

ruby: are we happy with the latest revision then ?

[Comment 11 Mamoru KOMACHI (RETIRED) 2004-11-30 22:08:38 UTC]

Thanks ka0ttic, I'm very happy with the manpage.

[Comment 12 SpanKY 2004-12-05 14:55:08 UTC]

now in cvs