| 1 |
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 20:21:03 +0200 |
| 2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 14:40:25 -0300 |
| 5 |
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 18:03:51 +0200 |
| 8 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > > On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 12:46:41 -0300 |
| 11 |
> > > Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > > I actually do like the concept but I'm not sure we can reach |
| 14 |
> > > > consensus about '*DEPEND vs DEPENDENCIES'; a possibility to get |
| 15 |
> > > > people used to it could be to have two parallel EAPIs, like 6 |
| 16 |
> > > > and 6-dependencies, where the former will keep the old style |
| 17 |
> > > > and the latter use DEPENDENCIES. |
| 18 |
> > > |
| 19 |
> > > With eclasses supporting both of them? That's more than crazy. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> > depstr=cat/foo |
| 22 |
> > |
| 23 |
> > case $EAPI in |
| 24 |
> > *-dependencies) DEPENDENCIES="build+run: $depstr";; |
| 25 |
> > *) DEPEND="$depstr" |
| 26 |
> > RDEPEND="$depstr";; |
| 27 |
> > esac |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Yes, we have many eclasses where this is actually the only expected |
| 30 |
> result. Maybe start with python.eclass, that should be quite an |
| 31 |
> extreme example. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Reference needed. You probably didn't even think more than 2 seconds |
| 35 |
before making this claim about python.eclass, because it is not |
| 36 |
particularly hard. |
Archives