| 1 |
On pon, 2017-03-20 at 18:01 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> What makes me wonder more are the proposed solutions: So far the only |
| 3 |
> proposals I've seen are either inlining *all* the code or moving *all* |
| 4 |
> the code into an eclass. Having a quick look at autoconf, it seems to me |
| 5 |
> an intermediate solution would work perfectly fine for the above |
| 6 |
> goals/rules: Put main.eblit into an eclass. The loading code then would |
| 7 |
> access $FILESDIR only in src_* phases. This would likely work better |
| 8 |
> for all parties and would allow to focus on better specifying this gray |
| 9 |
> area of PMS instead. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Don't you find it a bad hypocritical that at the same time you oppose |
| 12 |
committing an eclass for a single package and you support committing |
| 13 |
an eclass to support half-working hack for a single package? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Best regards, |
| 17 |
Michał Górny |
Archives