| 1 |
On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:58:55 +0100 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On czw, 2017-03-16 at 19:42 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:57:44 +0100 |
| 6 |
> > Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 9 |
> > > > Indeed, but that eclass fails to follow devmanual eclass 101 |
| 10 |
> > > > [1]: An eclass is a collection of code which can be used by |
| 11 |
> > > > more than one ebuild. |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > Which is the case here: |
| 14 |
> > > |
| 15 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.13.ebuild | 10 +--- |
| 16 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.59-r7.ebuild | 11 +--- |
| 17 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.61-r2.ebuild | 11 +--- |
| 18 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.62-r1.ebuild | 11 +--- |
| 19 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.63-r1.ebuild | 11 +--- |
| 20 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.64.ebuild | 11 +--- |
| 21 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.65-r1.ebuild | 11 +--- |
| 22 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.67.ebuild | 11 +--- |
| 23 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.68.ebuild | 11 +--- |
| 24 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.69-r2.ebuild | 11 +--- |
| 25 |
> > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-9999.ebuild | 15 ++--- |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > You're trying to find loopholes in the wording here, aren't you ? :) |
| 29 |
> > |
| 30 |
> > |
| 31 |
> > > > While this eclass might be a good temporary solution, I find it |
| 32 |
> > > > a rather convincing argument for per-package eclasses :) |
| 33 |
> > > |
| 34 |
> > > Yes, if there was sufficient demand for such a feature, and it |
| 35 |
> > > would therefore reduce the number of global eclasses |
| 36 |
> > > significantly. IMHO it wouldn't be worth it for only a handful of |
| 37 |
> > > packages. |
| 38 |
> > |
| 39 |
> > |
| 40 |
> > What do you consider demand ? |
| 41 |
> > |
| 42 |
> > A handful of packages that have to write a hundred lines of |
| 43 |
> > boilerplate code to make it work isn't representative of any demand |
| 44 |
> > at all. I've already written in some bug some usecases I foresee |
| 45 |
> > for even a trivial 'include'. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> I would really appreciate if you stopped diverting this thread. If you |
| 48 |
> don't have anything to add regarding the patch in question, then |
| 49 |
> please hesitate from commenting. |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> If you love eblits that much, then please take appropriate measures to |
| 52 |
> get them into the next EAPI. Because so far your non-productive |
| 53 |
> comments on any effort of cleaning this mess up reach the level of |
| 54 |
> pure trolling. |
| 55 |
> |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
I reiterate: Your level of agressivity on the matter has reached |
| 60 |
very high levels. Calling people names, putting yourself as the savior |
| 61 |
for all our sins and callings other's work a mess is really getting |
| 62 |
ridiculous. Take a break, forget about your deadline, relax, and maybe |
| 63 |
you'll see things get resolved by themselves without all the drama. |
| 64 |
You'll gain in both ways. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
As for your accusation of diverting the thread, I'm sorry but I thought |
| 67 |
new eclass reviews on -dev was also, and essentially, about ensuring the |
| 68 |
eclass is the proper solution to the problem it claims to solve. I |
| 69 |
guess next time I'll rather focus on missing '|| die' that can easily |
| 70 |
be fixed later. |
Archives