| 1 |
On 31/10/12 17:04, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:22:01 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> [...] |
| 5 |
>> One of the commits was before anything was said to ML (the EAPI |
| 6 |
>> change), the comment was later but the commenter didn't notice it |
| 7 |
>> just got fixed minutes before that. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> I didn't ignore anything, but pointed this thread and the comments to |
| 10 |
>> mgorny since the exact same EPREFIX code is in systemd.eclass too. If |
| 11 |
>> you think this is incorrect, I would expect prefix@ maintainers to |
| 12 |
>> provide a patch to correct it. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> That's why a review is usually useful... |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>> And as I already pointed out, i'll be reusing the internal function |
| 17 |
>> later on in the ebuild just like systemd.eclass does, like for |
| 18 |
>> example, $(udev_do_rules_d) function. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> Please show the code. As of now, the internal function is only |
| 21 |
> obfuscating a bit the code. This is obviously another order of |
| 22 |
> magnitude in terms of complexity but I do not want to have pyth... err |
| 23 |
> udev-ng, udev-ng-r1, udev-r1 eclasses :) |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
>> We discussed also the conversion from echo to printf and saw it |
| 26 |
>> unnecessary. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Who is we? And why? I believe the -n to echo is not useful, so better |
| 29 |
> drop it entirely instead of wrongly making people believe not having a |
| 30 |
> newline matters. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Was talking with the systemd/systemd.eclass maintainer in IRC. |
| 34 |
The -n was dropped as a conclusion of the discussion from both eclasses. |
Archives