| 1 |
Hallo, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>: |
| 4 |
> On 23:35 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Well, the point I'm trying to make here is a different one: The |
| 6 |
> > syntax you proposed is more to write but still equivalent to the |
| 7 |
> > one using vars. And looking at the ebuilds - taking G2CONF as an |
| 8 |
> > example - it seems that people don't have a problem with putting |
| 9 |
> > their config options into vars. And furthermore with your syntax |
| 10 |
> > you still have to write out "econf $(use_with ...)" explicitly |
| 11 |
> > while adding it the conf-vars to a var (as proposed) makes the |
| 12 |
> > complete src_configure function obsolete, allows the usage of the |
| 13 |
> > default src_configure/src_compile/src_install (see |
| 14 |
> > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_17e6ae8082aeb762fd01ba7307457789.xml |
| 15 |
> > for example) and is therefore even shorter to write. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I think the idea of ebuilds as scripts showing directly how to build |
| 18 |
> software is a core part of the Gentoo build-system philosophy. This |
| 19 |
> proposal pushes ebuilds toward a formatted file that is not a script. |
| 20 |
> Instead, it is more like an Ant XML file that more abstractly |
| 21 |
> describes a build. I think this is the wrong direction for ebuilds |
| 22 |
> because they should directly resemble how software is built by hand. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I agree with you here, the saving of space by not defining a custom |
| 25 |
src_configure() stands against readability for non-developers (also |
| 26 |
known as people who do not work with ebuilds on a daily basis but still |
| 27 |
regularly). We gain only a little bit. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
V-Li |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project |
| 33 |
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/> |
Archives