| 1 |
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 14:29:19 +0100 |
| 2 |
Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Dne 1.2.2010 14:14, Peter Volkov napsal(a): |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> > 1. |
| 6 |
> > -FONT_SUFFIX=${FONT_SUFFIX:-} |
| 7 |
> > +: ${FONT_SUFFIX:=} |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > What are the benefits of this change? Personally I prefer first syntax |
| 10 |
> > more since it's more evident and does not need to run empty command : |
| 11 |
> I am just used to this syntax. I dont think it is so huge issue that it |
| 12 |
> would need revert. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
No thanks. The second form is unreadable. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > 4. |
| 17 |
> > + [[ -n ${DOCS} ]] && { dodoc ${DOCS} || die "docs installation |
| 18 |
> > failed" ; } |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > This should be non fatal, until somebody installs all packages that |
| 21 |
> > inherit font.eclass and assures us that nothing broke with this change. |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> Actualy former behaviour was violating QA rules for dodoc, so it should |
| 24 |
> be fixed anyway. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Well then the QA rules for dodoc are dumb. :P There is no reason for an |
| 27 |
ebuild to die when a generic doc file doesn't get installed. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
The prefix changes are welcome assuming they've been tested. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
fonts, by design, by neglect |
| 34 |
gcc-porting, for a fact or just for effect |
| 35 |
wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 |
Archives