| 1 |
Steve Long kirjoitti: |
| 2 |
> Petteri Räty wrote: |
| 3 |
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=163262 |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
> What is the situation regarding the hooks in general? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
A user feature as said in the bug. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>>> They're a horrible solution. They don't stack and they override |
| 12 |
>>> something that is used by users. What's going to happen if anyone else |
| 13 |
>>> starts using the same functions? |
| 14 |
>> It's primarily a user feature, introduced due to the usefulness of |
| 15 |
>> /etc/portage/bashrc breaking down with proper env state handling. |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> <snip> |
| 18 |
>> If paludis doesn't want to support (pre|post)_*, whatever, long term it |
| 19 |
>> was only a user feature. |
| 20 |
>> |
| 21 |
>> Short term, it's part of the required env support. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> The "only a user feature" bothers me tbh. Is it so hard to make the |
| 24 |
> functions stack then? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Hard or not, read and understand what the whole EAPI stuff is about. |
| 28 |
Feel free to propose stuff for EAPI-1 but to do that you should be able |
| 29 |
to grasp what is useful and what is not. For that one should have lots |
| 30 |
of ebuild writing experience. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> (I'm thinking along the lines of an eclass which defines foo_src_unpack |
| 34 |
> which can be called by an ebuild function if overridden.) |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Which would be how eclasses already work. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
http://archives.gentoo.org/stats/gentoo-dev-per-month.xml |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
Feel free to contact me off list if you have any more questions instead |
| 42 |
of adding traffic to the mailing list. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Regards, |
| 45 |
Petteri |
Archives