Re: [gentoo-dev] DESCRIPTION="Based on the ${ECLASS} eclass"

[Michał Górny]

On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 17:18:16 -0400
"Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@g.o> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/14/2012 04:56 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:51:54 -0400
> > "Rick \"Zero_Chaos\" Farina" <zerochaos@g.o> wrote:
> >> I have a personal vendetta on this subject. Several eclasses set a
> >> completely worthless description (and even more set a mostly
> >> worthless DESCRIPTION) which ends up contaminating the DESCRIPTION
> >> for an ebuild when inherit is done after DESCRIPTION is set.
> >
> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/78813/
> >
> >> I realize that most of you will find this a little pedantic,
> >> however, I find that needing to move my DESCRIPTION to below the
> >> inherit often severely affects the readability of the ebuild, and
> >> all to avoid a completely (or nearly) worthless DESCRIPTION from
> >> contaminating my environment.
> >
> > You want your inherit line to be as near as the top as possible. The
> > only things you should have before the inherit line are EAPI and any
> > variables used by eclasses to determine behaviour.
> >
> >
> I have a nasty habit of writing ebuilds to be both live and versioned
> which requires me to test ${PV} then set things like inherit VCS,
> SRC-URI, and KEYWORDS below.  The large if block looks better in my
> opinion below the settings which are the same for all versions, rather
> than in the middle.
>
> Yes, it's a readability issue, but the point is, this shouldn't be an
> issue at all.

Use unifdef. Look at my overlay, and my ebuilds in the tree.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny