| 1 |
Am Sonntag 08 Juli 2012, 22:10:02 schrieb Michał Górny: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:49:25 +0200 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> René Neumann <lists@××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Hi all, |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > I'd like just to receive a short clarification about the 'status' of |
| 8 |
> > base.eclass: Is this eclass expected to be available everywhere, i.e. |
| 9 |
> > should each eclass make sure it imports and incorporates it. Or is it |
| 10 |
> > just an eclass like the others and ebuilds should make sure they |
| 11 |
> > inherit it if needed? |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> No. It is unmaintained, has serious design flaws and it simply should |
| 14 |
> not be used anywhere. At least in EAPI != [01]. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Please clarify this. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
A lot of (inheriting eclasses and) packages depend on features provided by |
| 19 |
base.eclass (e.g., PATCHES), which are pretty neat and which I would sorely |
| 20 |
miss. So I would certainly object to deprecating base.eclass, unless its |
| 21 |
relevant functionality is only moving to a better place. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Andreas K. Huettel |
| 26 |
Gentoo Linux developer |
| 27 |
dilfridge@g.o |
| 28 |
http://www.akhuettel.de/ |
Archives