| 1 |
On 30/10/12 21:56, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 +0000 (UTC) |
| 3 |
> "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" <ssuominen@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> [...] |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> case ${EAPI:-0} in |
| 8 |
>> 0|1|2|3|4) ;; |
| 9 |
>> *) die "${ECLASS}.eclass API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet |
| 10 |
>> established." esac |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> sounds like a useless and annoying check for just exporting one function |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> RDEPEND="" |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> useless? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
if the ebuild is EAPI=0 or EAPI=1 then DEPEND expands to RDEPEND, so |
| 20 |
setting empty RDEPEND prevents that, or am I missing something? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
>> DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig" |
| 24 |
>> |
| 25 |
>> # @FUNCTION: _udev_get_udevdir |
| 26 |
>> # @INTERNAL |
| 27 |
>> # @DESCRIPTION: |
| 28 |
>> # Get unprefixed udevdir. |
| 29 |
>> _udev_get_udevdir() { |
| 30 |
>> if $($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --exists udev); then |
| 31 |
>> echo -n "$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --variable=udevdir |
| 32 |
>> udev)" else |
| 33 |
>> echo -n /lib/udev |
| 34 |
>> fi |
| 35 |
>> } |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> # @FUNCTION: udev_get_udevdir |
| 38 |
>> # @DESCRIPTION: |
| 39 |
>> # Output the path for the udev directory (not including ${D}). |
| 40 |
>> # This function always succeeds, even if udev is not installed. |
| 41 |
>> # The fallback value is set to /lib/udev |
| 42 |
>> udev_get_udevdir() { |
| 43 |
>> has "${EAPI:-0}" 0 1 2 && ! use prefix && EPREFIX= |
| 44 |
>> debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}" |
| 45 |
>> |
| 46 |
>> echo -n "${EPREFIX}$(_udev_get_udevdir)" |
| 47 |
>> } |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> local foo="" |
| 50 |
> unfold _udev_get_udevdir there, replacing 'echo -n' by foo= |
| 51 |
> printf ...$foo |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> kill the extra internal fucntion that seems useless. |
| 54 |
> echo isn't really reliable for precise formatting, prefer printf when |
| 55 |
> it matters. (in this case it doesn't matter but seems good practices) |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> have you checked what is the udevdir value on prefix, if at all |
| 58 |
> relevant ? I fear a double prefix issue. |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
the code is more or less same as systemd.eclass has, I don't want to |
| 62 |
diverge too much from that since we are essentially dealing with the |
| 63 |
same package (tarball) |
Archives