1 |
On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:42:29AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> On 08:49 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano M?ller wrote: |
3 |
> > So I think it's time for a short eapi bump with some distinct |
4 |
> > improvements: |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> > http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pPAJXP6shYH78lCXeqRqCUQ |
7 |
> |
8 |
> - I understand the reasoning for the SRC_CONFIGURE_WITH blah stuff. I |
9 |
> strongly oppose this implementation because it makes ebuilds less like |
10 |
> bash scripts that are easy to understand. Instead I suggest extending |
11 |
> use_with() and use_enable() to accept multiple sets of arguments |
12 |
> (alternately, making custom, similar functions that will take multiple |
13 |
> args). Combined with the addition of src_configure() in EAPI=2, the |
14 |
> amount of code could be a large reduction from existing versions without |
15 |
> raising the barrier to entry. |
16 |
|
17 |
While I understand your concerns about the SRC_CONFIGURE stuff, there |
18 |
are two points I'd like to make; |
19 |
1) The barrier to entry is negligible. How much more difficult is it for |
20 |
someone to learn what CONFIGURE_ENABLES=( 'foo foobar' ) ? I didn't find |
21 |
it difficult at all(and I've used them). |
22 |
2) src_configure is just one part; src_compile has uses as does |
23 |
src_install. In fact, if you want to do patches, src_prepare would be in |
24 |
there too. What I'm saying is that focusing on the one part(configure) |
25 |
is ignoring the good part of the rest of the proposal. |
26 |
|
27 |
Regards, |
28 |
Thomas |
29 |
-- |
30 |
--------- |
31 |
Thomas Anderson |
32 |
Gentoo Developer |
33 |
///////// |
34 |
Areas of responsibility: |
35 |
AMD64, Secretary to the Gentoo Council |
36 |
--------- |