Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Font eclass EAPI update and design
Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:25:47
Message-Id: 20100201162652.588d029a@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] Font eclass EAPI update and design by "Tomáš Chvátal"
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:29:19 +0100
Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote:
> Dne 1.2.2010 14:14, Peter Volkov napsal(a):
> > 1. > > -FONT_SUFFIX=${FONT_SUFFIX:-} > > +: ${FONT_SUFFIX:=} > > > > What are the benefits of this change? Personally I prefer first syntax > > more since it's more evident and does not need to run empty command : > I am just used to this syntax. I dont think it is so huge issue that it > would need revert.
No thanks. The second form is unreadable.
> > 4. > > + [[ -n ${DOCS} ]] && { dodoc ${DOCS} || die "docs installation > > failed" ; } > > > > This should be non fatal, until somebody installs all packages that > > inherit font.eclass and assures us that nothing broke with this change. > > > Actualy former behaviour was violating QA rules for dodoc, so it should > be fixed anyway.
Well then the QA rules for dodoc are dumb. :P There is no reason for an ebuild to die when a generic doc file doesn't get installed. The prefix changes are welcome assuming they've been tested. -- fonts, by design, by neglect gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662