| 1 |
On 08/14/2012 02:44 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> As some of you may have noticed, lately introduced 'double include |
| 5 |
> preventions' have caused changes in effective phase functions in a few |
| 6 |
> ebuilds. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Can't that be avoided by putting the EXPORT_FUNCTIONS call outside of |
| 9 |
the ifndef block? The function implementations themselves can be inside |
| 10 |
the ifndef block, since that only need to be sourced once. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> Also, often it is undesirable that change in inherits of |
| 13 |
> an eclass may cause an undesired change of exported functions. To solve |
| 14 |
> these problems, we are proposing the following: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> 1. If an ebuild does not provide an explicit phase function, the phase |
| 18 |
> functions *directly exported* by *directly inherited* eclasses are used |
| 19 |
> to find a suitable default, |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> 2. Thus, if an eclass inherits another eclass and expects the phase |
| 22 |
> functions of that eclass to be effective to the ebuild, it needs to |
| 23 |
> create its own phase function and export it. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> This should make the ebuild behavior simpler to understand and saner. |
| 27 |
> It should also fix the forementioned issues, and allow us to make |
| 28 |
> the 'source eclasses only once'[1] proposal simpler. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> [1]:https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=422533 |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
I'm not sure that your cure isn't worse than the disease. |
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Thanks, |
| 35 |
Zac |
Archives