| 1 |
On 2021-07-13 18:35, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> are there any non-cosmetic reasons for doing this? |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
> Consistency with the rest of the tree. If you do a "git grep _R0" on the |
| 6 |
> eclass directory, the lua eclasses are the only ones that have this in |
| 7 |
> the names of the guard variables, and the eclasses themselves aren't |
| 8 |
> named lua-r0.eclass etc. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> What will break if I do this? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Nothing should, given that eclass guard variables should have no |
| 13 |
interactions with anything other than respective eclasses themselves. Of |
| 14 |
course that means this change *is* purely cosmetic... especially |
| 15 |
considering that while _FOO_ECLASS is currently the most common format |
| 16 |
in the tree it is by no means the only one, and that revision 0 is |
| 17 |
technically speaking a real thing that we just happen to treat as |
| 18 |
default and omit from names for brevity. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I've got no preference either way as long as guard variables can easily |
| 21 |
be searched for in eclass code, so if you haven't got anything more |
| 22 |
important to work on in Gentoo go ahead. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Marecki |
Archives