| 1 |
On Sunday, August 22, 2010 17:32:11 Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dne 22.8.2010 23:18, Mike Frysinger napsal(a): |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday, August 22, 2010 17:10:32 Tomáš Chvátal wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> Dne 22.8.2010 23:06, Mike Frysinger napsal(a): |
| 5 |
> >>>> scons_use() |
| 6 |
> >>> |
| 7 |
> >>> keep the use_xxx style ... so rename it to "use_scons()" |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> Hmm we use |
| 10 |
> >> cmake-utils_use_* |
| 11 |
> >> |
| 12 |
> >> i think use_cmake-utils-* |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> also if renamed to cmake_use-* it would look more sane than use_cmake-* |
| 15 |
> >> |
| 16 |
> >> but if we make agreement other way we can replace it in cmake utils |
| 17 |
> >> quite easily :) |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > changing eclass style to match the older-than-PMS style sounds more |
| 20 |
> > feasible. so i'd go with use_cmake-xxx. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Do we have some poll capabilites only for devs? Something on forums? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
i think we only have the forums |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> We can do either way and provide backcompat -> not so hard :) So i would |
| 27 |
> leave decision to the peepz. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> I dont care whether i use cmake-utils_use_enable or use_cmake_enable :) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
so we're clear, lemme phrase it this way: use_enable/use_with/use_xxx isnt |
| 32 |
changing. whether you choose to rename the cmake eclasses to follow the |
| 33 |
existing standard is up to you. personally, i think "use_cmake_enable" makes |
| 34 |
the most sense (or dare i suggest "use_enable_cmake" ...). |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
transitional backwards compat shouldnt be hard. ewarn should dump to stderr |
| 37 |
which means you should be able to use it in existing functions without |
| 38 |
breaking people. |
| 39 |
-mike |
Archives