Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: calling all eclass phase functions by default
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2014 12:21:42
Message-Id: 53F1EFCB.9060403@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: calling all eclass phase functions by default by Rich Freeman
1 18.08.2014 14:44, Rich Freeman пишет:
2 > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 4:54 AM, Sergey Popov <pinkbyte@g.o> wrote:
3 >> 17.08.2014 01:54, William Hubbs пишет:
4 >>>
5 >>> # Foo and bar both have src_unpack and src_install functions.
6 >>> # we want foo's src_unpack and bar's src_install:
7 >>>
8 >>> ECLASS_PHASES="foo_src_unpack
9 >>> bar_src_install"
10 >>
11 >> You have my strong opposition on such change as well. It will turn
12 >> ebuilds into unreadable and undpredictable mess, please do not do that
13 >>
14 >
15 > I'm not sure I follow your complaint. He is talking about adding one
16 > line to an ebuild. I'm not sure how that is unreadable, and the
17 > algorithm you quoted looks fairly predictable to me as well.
18 >
19 > Certainly it is less convenient than not having to do anything to pull
20 > in eclass-defined phase functions, and it requires ebuilds to be
21 > updated when eclasses are updated to add new phase functions. That
22 > could be problematic for cases like KDE/X11/etc where you have a large
23 > collection of short ebuilds with all the logic in an eclass.
24 >
25 > I just want to make sure I'm understanding your concern in case there
26 > is a new issue being raised.
27
28 What's bad with overriding needed functions and saying which exported
29 functions(from eclasses) to execute and in which order?
30
31 Is this approach flaw? In which ways?
32
33 --
34 Best regards, Sergey Popov
35 Gentoo developer
36 Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead
37 Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies