| 1 |
All, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
I spoke with mgorny on IRC and found out what his concerns are about our |
| 4 |
current eclasses. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
First, he thinks we should get rid of base.eclass. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I know there is work going on to get rid of it, but I haven't really |
| 9 |
looked into the status much yet. I do agree though, we shouldn't have a |
| 10 |
general-purpose eclass like this that overrides default phase functions. |
| 11 |
Things like this belong in PMS; not in an eclass. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The other concern he mentioned was indirectly inherited eclasses being |
| 14 |
able to override phase functions. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
He said for example that if an ebuild inherits foo and foo inherits bar, |
| 17 |
foo should export all of the phase functions bar exports. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
This may cause some boilerplating in some of the eclasses, so I'm |
| 20 |
wondering if it would be feasible to make EXPORT_FUNCTIONS work only for |
| 21 |
the first level of inheritance? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thoughts? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
William |
Archives