| 1 |
On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 18:56:29 +0200 |
| 2 |
Tomáš Chvátal <tomas.chvatal@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Dne St 3. dubna 2013 16:29:48, Ciaran McCreesh napsal(a): |
| 5 |
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 6 |
> > Hash: SHA1 |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 14:33:30 +0200 |
| 9 |
> > hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > > You also have to rename the PATCHES array, because base.eclass already |
| 12 |
> > > uses that name with epatch. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > base.eclass should have died a horrible death a long time ago. A new |
| 16 |
> > EAPI is an excellent opportunity to ban it. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> This is actually good idea to ban the base.eclass usage, but wonder how |
| 20 |
> complex it would make all the eclasses that currently inherit it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I think EAPI 6 should export all the means necessary to reimplement |
| 23 |
the missing parts of it, inclusing user docs install and patch |
| 24 |
application functions. Is there anything else that would be necessary? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Best regards, |
| 28 |
Michał Górny |
Archives