| 1 |
On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 19:45:44 +0100 |
| 2 |
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 03/24/10 11:28, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > 3. ESCM_LIVE_FAIL_IF_REPO_NOT_UPDATED (similar to the one in |
| 6 |
> > git.eclass) |
| 7 |
> > - a common switch to force unpack() phase to fail if no updates |
| 8 |
> > were found during the pull/update. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> What about ESCM_REVISION defaulting to empty value meaning to use |
| 11 |
> head/tip/etc revision? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
ESCM_* variables would rather be set on a global basis (in make.conf or |
| 14 |
calling env), not in specific ebuild. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> > b) Common eclass-specific variables - these ones should allow user |
| 17 |
> > to override above variables for single SCM. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > 1. E*_STORE_DIR (defaulting to ${ESCM_DISTDIR}/*-src) |
| 20 |
> > - already used by few eclasses, allowing user to change |
| 21 |
> > the location where SCM-specific clones are stored. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> Is it really necessary? Can't we switch to one, common vcs-src/ (or |
| 24 |
> something like this) directory? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
I don't see any real benefits of using single directory, and we would |
| 27 |
either have to move all existing repos (which would break backwards |
| 28 |
compat and will probably have at least one serious issues) or force |
| 29 |
user to refetch all of them. Just after a month or two ago shklee had |
| 30 |
to it anyway due to changes in git.eclass. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> > 2. E*_OFFLINE (defaulting to ${ESCM_OFFLINE}) |
| 33 |
> > - allowing user to override global 'offline switch'. Thus, it |
| 34 |
> > should also support setting 'false' value to enable network |
| 35 |
> > interaction for single SCM. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> If there's a ESCM_OFFLINE is it necessary to copy the information |
| 38 |
> again to vcs-specific eclasses? I don't think so. In other words: I |
| 39 |
> don't think that copying variables from parent eclass to vcs-specific |
| 40 |
> one has any point. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
True. But this particular var is already defined in few eclasses, and I |
| 43 |
really do not want to break compat. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
And last of all, as I should have mentioned earlier, I would like |
| 46 |
to avoid raising a revolution. I would rather like developing some |
| 47 |
common feature list based on what eclasses currently do, and adding |
| 48 |
missing ones to particular eclasses. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
-- |
| 51 |
Best regards, |
| 52 |
Michał Górny |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
<http://mgorny.alt.pl> |
| 55 |
<xmpp:mgorny@××××××.ru> |
Archives