| 1 |
On Tuesday 24 of August 2010 10:30:12 Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:36:50 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > If SCons is unpredictable, then don't provide *any* phases and only |
| 6 |
> > functions and rename it to scons-utils to match its purpose. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It is as predictable as the buildsystem meeting the default phase |
| 9 |
> functions requirements -- we can configure it, compile it but no way of |
| 10 |
> knowing what should be done in 'install' for sure. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > What I hate is deliberately introduced inconsistency in ebuild API's. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What I hate is replicating bad practices just because someone else did |
| 15 |
> that before. If I'm wrong, then please point me the relation between |
| 16 |
> a particular buildsystem and patching. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Ideologically there's none, but practically build system may need patching in |
| 19 |
eclass to fit Gentoo needs. And it's better to do it officially in eclass |
| 20 |
src_prepare phase than hack around elsewhere. |
| 21 |
Either provide all buildsystem related phases or none - I'm already tired of |
| 22 |
playing "guess which phase from which eclass takes precedence when multiple |
| 23 |
inheritance is used" game. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
regards |
| 27 |
MM |
Archives