| 1 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 17:38:11 +0200 |
| 4 |
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > By the way, do we really want to special case eapi-2 in every |
| 6 |
>> > eclass ? That's lot of code duplication and will get even worse |
| 7 |
>> > when we'll reach eapi-42. That would have been cool to have a pm |
| 8 |
>> > function that tells "has my eapi foo support" but that sort of |
| 9 |
>> > bites its tail that way. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Hm, what about: |
| 12 |
>> [ "$(type -t src_configure)" == function ] && EXPORT_FUNCTIONS |
| 13 |
>> src_configure |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Or is this too fragile or trying to be too clever? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> It's illegal, according to PMS. It also won't work with Paludis, since |
| 18 |
> phase function definitions aren't made available until just before that |
| 19 |
> phase executes (there is a reason for this -- it provides us with a way |
| 20 |
> of identifying whether a package has a particular phase or not). |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
That seems a bit implementation-specific; how one alternative package |
| 23 |
manager generates that metadata isn't important (though it does seem odd |
| 24 |
that you think it has to be done at that point) nor should it get in the |
| 25 |
way. |
Archives