1 |
On 19:27 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote: |
2 |
> Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 10:01 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz: |
3 |
> > It would just eliminate all but one call to use_with(). Depending on how |
4 |
> > many you've got, this can shorten things up a fair bit. Here's an |
5 |
> > example: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > econf \ |
8 |
> > $(use_with 'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk') |
9 |
> |
10 |
> The above could be rewritten to: |
11 |
> |
12 |
> ECONF_USE_WITH="'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk'" |
13 |
> econf $(use_with ${ECONF_USE_WITH}) |
14 |
|
15 |
Why would I want to obfuscate my code like that by purposely making |
16 |
people look in multiple places to figure out what it's doing? I don't |
17 |
see how this is any improvement. |
18 |
|
19 |
> or an eclass could even export this: |
20 |
> |
21 |
> src_configure() { |
22 |
> [ -n ${ECONF_USE_WITH} ] && USE_WITH="$(use_with |
23 |
> \"${ECONF_USE_WITH}\")" |
24 |
> econf ${USE_WITH} |
25 |
> } |
26 |
> |
27 |
> Guessing from what I see in the gnome/kde eclasses I think people will |
28 |
> implement the above then in eclasses and I therefore don't see why we |
29 |
> can't do it like that from the beginning... |
30 |
|
31 |
If it can be implemented in an eclass, why would we want to do it as an |
32 |
EAPI in a package manager? Eclasses can be easily changed, you only need |
33 |
to write them once, and you don't have to deal with updating & approving |
34 |
a spec and new implementation for a bug in the previous implementation |
35 |
(which you have to retain indefinitely). |
36 |
|
37 |
-- |
38 |
Thanks, |
39 |
Donnie |
40 |
|
41 |
Donnie Berkholz |
42 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
43 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com |