| 1 |
On 08/14/2012 01:54 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 21:45:56 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 11:44:49 +0200 |
| 6 |
>> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> As some of you may have noticed, lately introduced 'double include |
| 8 |
>>> preventions' have caused changes in effective phase functions in a |
| 9 |
>>> few ebuilds. Also, often it is undesirable that change in inherits |
| 10 |
>>> of an eclass may cause an undesired change of exported functions. |
| 11 |
>> |
| 12 |
>> The problem here is that eclasses aren't clearly split between |
| 13 |
>> "utility" and "does stuff", so people are inheriting "does stuff" |
| 14 |
>> eclasses to get utilities. The fix is to stop having stupidly huge |
| 15 |
>> complicated eclasses; changing inherit behaviour is just wallpapering |
| 16 |
>> over the gaping hole. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Ciaran's assessment sounds pretty accurate to me. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> Soo, how do you propose to handle bug 422533 without changing inherit |
| 21 |
> behavior? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Close it as WONTFIX. The ifndef thing that we're doing now seems like a |
| 24 |
reasonable approach. |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Thanks, |
| 27 |
Zac |
Archives