| 1 |
On Sun, 24 Feb 2013 05:22:43 +0100 |
| 2 |
hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Before people start asking I should explain why I started this: |
| 5 |
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458638 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I think having such an eclass has several advantages over |
| 8 |
> autootools-multilib.eclass (which depends on autotools-utils.eclass) as |
| 9 |
> it is now: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> a) Less eclass dependencies. One could argue: the more eclasses my |
| 12 |
> ebuild uses the more prone to error and exposed to changes it is. |
| 13 |
> b) easier conversion in some cases: often times a simple rename |
| 14 |
> src_compile -> multilib_src_compile will do |
| 15 |
> c) it allows more custom definition of phase functions |
| 16 |
> d) the previous point will also allow to convert go-mono.eclass packages |
| 17 |
> without introducing yet another eclass for that |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Then don't put 'autotools' in the name. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> e) autotools-utils.eclass does a bit more than just calling default |
| 22 |
> phase functions; the developer has little choice on this matter unless |
| 23 |
> he wants to rewrite his ebuild based on multilib-build.eclass which will |
| 24 |
> create a lot of code duplication in ebuilds, hence this proposition |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Yes, everyone sees 'a bit more' but nobody so far was able to point |
| 27 |
what it is exactly. Or people simply don't know what PMS does nowadays. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Best regards, |
| 31 |
Michał Górny |
Archives