| 1 |
On 03/23/2013 04:53 PM, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> After packaging the complete humble bundle last time I noticed a bit |
| 3 |
> of code duplication. |
| 4 |
> Nothing serious, but I still think there could be a small eclass |
| 5 |
> making things easier. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Especially the "remove_bundled_libs" function and the is useful IMO |
| 8 |
> and allows to easily remove those things. |
| 9 |
> The GAMES_PRESERVE_BUNDLED_LIBS array would allow to preserve libs, |
| 10 |
> e.g. stuff like "libbass" which is not present in the tree and even |
| 11 |
> GAMES_PRESERVE_BUNDLED_LIBS_amd64 (in case we have a 32bit only game |
| 12 |
> and there are no multilib versions for some of those libs). |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> It also works well with a "bundled-libs" useflag (see |
| 15 |
> games-bin_src_prepare), because it can happen that binary games break |
| 16 |
> while the tree is moving forward with library versions, or that system |
| 17 |
> libraries create weird blockers for the user or even cause runtime |
| 18 |
> breakage (which happened with the editor of games-rpg/grimrock wrt |
| 19 |
> #454934). |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Most bin games use some functions from unpacker.eclass, so it is |
| 22 |
> inherited and used in games-bin_src_unpack by default. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I was also thinking about some check-reqs thing, but it's probably |
| 25 |
> better that is handled explicitly. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> If you have suggestions or if you think that approach sucks, please |
| 29 |
> tell me. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
If it works, I see no reason not to commit it. It has my okay. |
Archives