Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Markos Chandras <hwoarang@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: add optfeature() function
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2014 10:13:21
Message-Id: 52E38E0A.70107@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] eutils.eclass: add optfeature() function by "Michał Górny"
1 On 01/23/2014 04:48 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
2 > Dnia 2014-01-23, o godz. 11:36:06
3 > Chris Reffett <creffett@g.o> napisał(a):
4 >
5 >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
6 >> Hash: SHA1
7 >>
8 >> On 01/23/2014 11:28 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
9 >>> Dnia 2014-01-23, o godz. 11:24:41 Chris Reffett
10 >>> <creffett@g.o> napisał(a):
11 >>>
12 >>>> After some discussion on good ways to communicate optional
13 >>>> dependencies to users, I was shown the optfeature() function in
14 >>>> net-misc/netctl. Gentoo contributor Andrew Hamilton and I came up
15 >>>> with a cleaned up and expanded version of it, and I would like to
16 >>>> add it to eutils.eclass to provide a standard way of notifying
17 >>>> users of optional dependencies. The patch to eutils.eclass is
18 >>>> attached.
19 >>>
20 >>> This was discussed already:
21 >>>
22 >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/72162
23 >>>
24 >> First of all, this is a short patch for a function, not a full eclass.
25 >
26 > Ah, sorry, this changes *a lot*. Let's start the bikeshed again then,
27 > whatever.
28 >
29 I haven't looked at the implementation, but I wonder if we need a
30 function for such trivial stuff. Most maintainers deal with this problem
31 using pkg_postinst() einfo/elog messages. Why do we need a dedicated
32 function for that? Just for consistency reasons...?
33
34 --
35 Regards,
36 Markos Chandras

Replies