| 1 |
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 23:40:29 +0200 |
| 2 |
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> A lot of (inheriting eclasses and) packages depend on features |
| 4 |
> provided by base.eclass (e.g., PATCHES), which are pretty neat and |
| 5 |
> which I would sorely miss. So I would certainly object to deprecating |
| 6 |
> base.eclass, unless its relevant functionality is only moving to a |
| 7 |
> better place. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Then you should ask for EAPI support for PATCHES, or write the code |
| 10 |
manually, or put the code in a small eclass that just does that. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
But note that the Council has voted against having either arguments or |
| 13 |
global scope variables to enhance default phase functions. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives