Hallo,

Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>:
> 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.

 I agree with you here, the saving of space by not defining a custom
src_configure() stands against readability for non-developers (also
known as people who do not work with ebuilds on a daily basis but still
regularly).  We gain only a little bit.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://www.faulhammer.org/>