Re: [gentoo-dev] Ideas for a (fast) EAPI=3

[Tiziano Müller]

Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 23:31 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> On 21:22 Sun 08 Mar     , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > On 23:35 Sun 08 Mar     , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> > > Well, the point I'm trying to make here is a different one: The syntax
> > > you proposed is more to write but still equivalent to the one using
> > > vars. And looking at the ebuilds - taking G2CONF as an example - it
> > > seems that people don't have a problem with putting their config
> > > options into vars. And furthermore with your syntax you still have to
> > > write out "econf $(use_with ...)" explicitly while adding it the
> > > conf-vars to a var (as proposed) makes the complete src_configure
> > > function obsolete, allows the usage of the default
> > > src_configure/src_compile/src_install (see
> > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_17e6ae8082aeb762fd01ba7307457789.xml
> > > for example) and is therefore even shorter to write.
> >
> > I think the idea of ebuilds as scripts showing directly how to build
> > software is a core part of the Gentoo build-system philosophy. This
> > proposal pushes ebuilds toward a formatted file that is not a script.
> > Instead, it is more like an Ant XML file that more abstractly describes
> > a build. I think this is the wrong direction for ebuilds because they
> > should directly resemble how software is built by hand.
> >
> > One of the key reasons people use Gentoo is that ebuilds are so easy to
> > "get" for anyone who has ever built software by hand. I will continue to
> > vehemently defend anything that I think retains this key advantage of
> > Gentoo over other distributions.
>
> To return to the original point of this whole thread, your goal was to
> get EAPI=3 through fairly quickly without tons of controversial points.
> I don't think this component qualifies. Feel free to bring it up again
> for 4.

Wanted to say the same thing. Removed from the list.