1 |
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:35:08 -0400 |
2 |
Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 22:10:02 +0200 |
5 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:49:25 +0200 |
8 |
> > René Neumann <lists@××××××.eu> wrote: |
9 |
> > |
10 |
> > > Hi all, |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > I'd like just to receive a short clarification about the 'status' |
13 |
> > > of base.eclass: Is this eclass expected to be available |
14 |
> > > everywhere, i.e. should each eclass make sure it imports and |
15 |
> > > incorporates it. Or is it just an eclass like the others and |
16 |
> > > ebuilds should make sure they inherit it if needed? |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > No. It is unmaintained, has serious design flaws and it simply |
19 |
> > should not be used anywhere. At least in EAPI != [01]. |
20 |
> > |
21 |
> |
22 |
> what is the PATCHES=() replacement in new eapis? (mainly why i use |
23 |
> base.eclass more and more these days) |
24 |
|
25 |
That's what I used: |
26 |
|
27 |
[[ ${PATCHES} ]] && epatch "${PATCHES[@]}" |
28 |
|
29 |
-- |
30 |
Best regards, |
31 |
Michał Górny |