1 |
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:43:48PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
2 |
> On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 23:04:06 Brian Harring wrote: |
3 |
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:45:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
4 |
> > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 19:08:09 Brian Harring wrote: |
5 |
> > > > While a bit longer, we likely can gut most of the use_* logic to |
6 |
> > > > use that, and it makes it easier to deal w/ the situations where a |
7 |
> > > > configure's options always assume --enable-blah thus don't export the |
8 |
> > > > option, but *do* export a --disable-blah. |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > yeah, i thought about replacing use_{with,enable} with usex, but we'd |
11 |
> > > have to extend usex() a little bit more |
12 |
> > |
13 |
> > Only extension I can think of is adding a prefix/postfix... which |
14 |
> > frankly seems a bit too much. Anything else you were looking for? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> i dont think the postfix is needed for use_{enable,with}: |
17 |
> usex() { use $1 && echo ${2:-yes} || echo ${3:-no} ; } |
18 |
> use_enable() { usex $1 --enable-${2:-$1}${3:+=}$3 --disable-${2:-$1} ; } |
19 |
> use_with() { usex $1 --with-${2:-$1}${3:+=}$3 --without-${2:-$1} ; } |
20 |
> |
21 |
> although adding it to usex is cheap, simplifies the other helpers a little, |
22 |
> and might get used in more creative ways i cant imagine right now: |
23 |
> usex() { use $1 && echo ${2:-yes}$4 || echo ${3:-no}$5 ; } |
24 |
> use_enable() { usex $1 --{en,dis}able-${2:-$1} "${3:+=}$3" ; } |
25 |
> use_with() { usex $1 --with{,out}-${2:-$1} "${3:+=}$3"; } |
26 |
> |
27 |
> so unless there's any other feedback, i'll open an EAPI bug on the topic and |
28 |
> merge it to eutils.eclass |
29 |
|
30 |
Might want to get EAPI sorted before it lands in eutils... |
31 |
|
32 |
Either way, have at it, preferably less dense implementations however |
33 |
;) |
34 |
~harring |