| 1 |
On 06/16/2012 01:05 PM, Gilles Dartiguelongue wrote: |
| 2 |
> Le vendredi 15 juin 2012 à 21:04 +0200, Pacho Ramos a écrit : |
| 3 |
>> El vie, 15-06-2012 a las 09:03 +0200, Pacho Ramos escribió: |
| 4 |
>>> El mar, 12-06-2012 a las 23:02 -0400, Mike Frysinger escribió: |
| 5 |
>>>> i've noticed a growing trend where people put setup of variables into |
| 6 |
>>>> pkg_setup that only matter to src_* funcs presumably so they don't have to |
| 7 |
>>>> call the respective src_* func from an inherited eclass. unfortunately this |
| 8 |
>>>> adds pointless overhead to binpkgs. can we please move away from this |
| 9 |
>>>> practice ? |
| 10 |
>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>> i've seen this with a good number of the GNOME packages like: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> [...] |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> This is most likely historic and reading the eclasses, I see no use of |
| 16 |
> G2CONF that would forbid working from src_configure. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> I guess the pratice emerged from not wanting to write |
| 19 |
> gnome2_src_configure all the timebut if there is a reason (like the one |
| 20 |
> you exposed) to do it this way, then it'll become our new standard |
| 21 |
> pratice :) |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
That is a quite bottleneck, at least for me. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I don't think this issue is solvable without creating an new function to |
| 26 |
pass the vars across functions (phases) that has no existing content |
| 27 |
that would require calling itself at the end, like for example, src_setup() |
Archives