| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
[...] |
| 6 |
> The benefit is that it's a logically separate action, and will avoid |
| 7 |
> all the silliness of people repeatedly changing their minds about |
| 8 |
> which phase should do the eautoreconf calls and so on. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
a) Is this really an issue for maintainers? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
b) Does it really matter? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
c) So the flow will look like: |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
... |
| 17 |
src_unpack |
| 18 |
src_prepare |
| 19 |
src_configure |
| 20 |
src_compile |
| 21 |
... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
To me this seems like an unnecessary overgeneralisation. The *only* |
| 24 |
potential "benefit" I see here is that at some point of time in the |
| 25 |
nebulous future, it might be possible to tell the PM to always skip |
| 26 |
src_prepare in order to give a system where everything is "vanilla". |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This is not something I see as being useful to us. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
- -- Arun |
| 31 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkirCm0ACgkQ+Vqt1inD4uyTvQCgjEPHRCJUFrIsoyk5EnYb/jNC |
| 35 |
Lu8An0KTbHP59UXa4UcShSC7VwLUgQpI |
| 36 |
=zwPv |
| 37 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives