Summary: | Allow pass variables to default_src_install | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Gentoo Hosted Projects | Reporter: | Pacho Ramos <pacho> |
Component: | PMS/EAPI | Assignee: | PMS/EAPI <pms> |
Status: | RESOLVED WONTFIX | ||
Severity: | normal | CC: | esigra |
Priority: | Normal | ||
Version: | unspecified | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Package list: | Runtime testing required: | --- | |
Bug Depends on: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 174380 |
Description
Pacho Ramos
2017-02-05 08:44:39 UTC
I'd say WONTFIX. I this this was rolled over multiple times, and it's against the interface we'd like to have. Inlining the default is not really an issue. Looking to bin/ebuild-helpers/emake it seems emake could get the needed variables from ${MAKEOPTS} (are we allowed to use this var for that... or should only be used for -j* stuff), "$@" (but default_src_install will not allow that to work) and ${EXTRA_EMAKE} (but... I wasn't trying to use that as I wasn't sure it was a portage specific thing :/) MAKEOPTS is for the user and you're not supposed to touch it. (In reply to Pacho Ramos from comment #2) > Looking to bin/ebuild-helpers/emake it seems emake could get the needed > variables from ${MAKEOPTS} (are we allowed to use this var for that... or > should only be used for -j* stuff) this was a question, but I didn't type the "?" Also, allowing to pass needed variables to emake install would also benefit other eclasses that wouldn't need to reinvent the wheel in multiple places (like gnome2.eclass, xfconf.eclass, bsdmk.eclass...) (In reply to Michał Górny from comment #1) > I'd say WONTFIX. I this this was rolled over multiple times, and it's > against the interface we'd like to have. Inlining the default is not really > an issue. WONTFIX. A default is a default. If you want something different from it, the ebuild must be slightly more verbose. |