Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] qmail.eclass draft

[Benedikt Boehm]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:17:46 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <hansmi@g.o> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:05:23PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> > > qmail_base_install should be split in smaller functions, maybe
> > > with callbacks (if possible in bash).
>
> > There is now qmail_mini_install (called by every qmail ebuild) and
> > qmail_{full,man,sendmail}_install for the rest of a full blown
> > install.
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean with "callbacks" here, maybe you can
> > elaborate?
>
> If we have a common part which cannot, due to whatever reason, be
> split into several functions, but we've to do something package
> specific in between, we need callbacks. Just a sample (might not work
> at all, I'm not that much into eclasses):
>
> foo.eclass:
> foo_src_install() {
>     # Some prefix code
>     # …
>
>     package_specific_code
>
>     # Some postfix code
>     # …
> }
>
> foo-simple.ebuild:
> src_install() { foo_src_install }
> package_specific_code() {
>     # code for foo-simple
> }
>
> foo-adv.ebuild:
> src_install() { foo_src_install }
> package_specific_code() {
>     # code for foo-adv
> }

i guess this could be done with some "eval" foo... going to run some
tests the next days

>
> > The qmail_*_install changes are already in my overlay,
>
> How can I get it using SVN? Looking at the site for more than a minute
> shouldn't be required to find it.

svn co http://overlays.gentoo.org/svn/dev/hollow

>
> Btw.: you didn't correct your blog posting to show the actual facts.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list