| 1 |
Joshua Nichols kirjoitti: |
| 2 |
> Vlastimil Babka wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I wonder if ebuild using those variables would be more typing than |
| 4 |
>> ebuild with own src_compile() :) but not a bad idea anyway. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
> The idea is that you don't end up repeating the same code snippet over |
| 8 |
> and over. Instead, you use some variables to configure what targets get |
| 9 |
> called. This helps with maintainence, as if we change src_compile, you |
| 10 |
> don't have to update it in a trillion places. For example, eant dies by |
| 11 |
> itself on error, but a lot of places do eant || die. If we had a default |
| 12 |
> src_compile, you'd have to fix it in exactly one place. |
| 13 |
>> Yeah check is needed, otherwise you'll be trying to compile current -bin |
| 14 |
>> packages without src_compile() in ebuild... |
| 15 |
>> Not sure if any ebuild would use the variable, but why not... |
| 16 |
>> |
| 17 |
> The answer to 'why not' would be added complexity. But some packages |
| 18 |
> would use it, ie, I know some packages have build files at, for example |
| 19 |
> 'build/build.xml'. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Committed the attached. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Regards, |
| 25 |
Petteri |
Archives