| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Vaeth <vaeth@××××××××××××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> But it doesn't do this well, because it is incompatible with any other |
| 4 |
> case. Assume, for example, that you have an ebuild in this manner and |
| 5 |
> that for the new release or for a bugfix you need a small non-included |
| 6 |
> thing - then this means that you have to rewrite the ebuild almost |
| 7 |
> completely. The suggestion violates in an extreme way the golden design |
| 8 |
> rule that small changes in effect should require small changes in source. |
| 9 |
> Moreover, a second syntax is introduced which everybody has learn, |
| 10 |
> although it could be done as easily by the standard commands. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Yes, you're right. That would be really tedious and stupid... but |
| 15 |
we're lucky, and EAPI-2 introduced the 'default' function. So if you |
| 16 |
need to do a small change not covered by this method, you just define |
| 17 |
the phase, make the little change, and then call the 'default' |
| 18 |
function. Clean and simple. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
In any case, I guess people are not considering this change for |
| 21 |
EAPI-2. I think we'll come up with a more extense proposal which could |
| 22 |
be targeted for EAPI-3. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Regards, |
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Santiago M. Mola |
| 27 |
Jabber ID: cooldwind@×××××.com |
Archives