| 1 |
On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:45:45 -0400 |
| 2 |
Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 22:45 -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:43:32 -0400 |
| 6 |
> > Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetromino@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > The variables that vala_pkg_setup sets are needed only at build |
| 8 |
> > > time. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > so it should be vala_src_prepare / unpack instead ? |
| 11 |
> > definitely not anything pkg_* imho |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> IMHO src_prepare or src_unpack would be misleading because the |
| 14 |
> function does not modify the package's source and has nothing to do |
| 15 |
> with unpacking. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
it creates files as far as i understood the code; |
| 18 |
the point of vala.eclass is to prepare the environment for building |
| 19 |
the package, right ? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
you can probably get a valid point for a src_setup phase in a |
| 22 |
future eapi, but so far with current eapi, src_prepare seems the best |
| 23 |
choice |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> It's not an unusual idiom to set various environment |
| 26 |
> variables in pkg_setup even if those variables are relevant only at |
| 27 |
> build time; gnome-extra/zeitgeist and xfce4-vala/xfce4-vala are |
| 28 |
> typical examples that already export VALAC in their pkg_setup(). |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
lots of bad examples does not make it good :) |
| 31 |
this is just wasted cpu cycles for binpkgs, moreover these two examples |
| 32 |
only set a variable and call type -P; the eclass does set a couple |
| 33 |
more of variables and writes to $T |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
anyway its your call, but given that the eclass is only useful for |
| 37 |
building it seems bad practices to put its code in a pkg_ phase. |
Archives