| 1 |
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> 17.08.2014 01:54, William Hubbs пишет: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> # Foo and bar both have src_unpack and src_install functions. |
| 5 |
>> # we want foo's src_unpack and bar's src_install: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> ECLASS_PHASES="foo_src_unpack |
| 8 |
>> bar_src_install" |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> You have my strong opposition on such change as well. It will turn |
| 11 |
> ebuilds into unreadable and undpredictable mess, please do not do that |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm not sure I follow your complaint. He is talking about adding one |
| 15 |
line to an ebuild. I'm not sure how that is unreadable, and the |
| 16 |
algorithm you quoted looks fairly predictable to me as well. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Certainly it is less convenient than not having to do anything to pull |
| 19 |
in eclass-defined phase functions, and it requires ebuilds to be |
| 20 |
updated when eclasses are updated to add new phase functions. That |
| 21 |
could be problematic for cases like KDE/X11/etc where you have a large |
| 22 |
collection of short ebuilds with all the logic in an eclass. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I just want to make sure I'm understanding your concern in case there |
| 25 |
is a new issue being raised. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives