Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <gentoo@××××××××××.pl>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: reavertm@×××××.com
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: scons.eclass
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 08:31:19
Message-Id: 20100824103012.7079a6e6@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New eclass: scons.eclass by Maciej Mrozowski
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:36:50 +0200
Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> wrote:

> If SCons is unpredictable, then don't provide *any* phases and only > functions and rename it to scons-utils to match its purpose.
It is as predictable as the buildsystem meeting the default phase functions requirements -- we can configure it, compile it but no way of knowing what should be done in 'install' for sure.
> What I hate is deliberately introduced inconsistency in ebuild API's.
What I hate is replicating bad practices just because someone else did that before. If I'm wrong, then please point me the relation between a particular buildsystem and patching. -- Best regards, Michał Górny <> <xmpp:mgorny@××××××.ru>


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: scons.eclass Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com>