| 1 |
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 23:04:06 Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:45:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 19:08:09 Brian Harring wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > While a bit longer, we likely can gut most of the use_* logic to |
| 5 |
> > > use that, and it makes it easier to deal w/ the situations where a |
| 6 |
> > > configure's options always assume --enable-blah thus don't export the |
| 7 |
> > > option, but *do* export a --disable-blah. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> > yeah, i thought about replacing use_{with,enable} with usex, but we'd |
| 10 |
> > have to extend usex() a little bit more |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Only extension I can think of is adding a prefix/postfix... which |
| 13 |
> frankly seems a bit too much. Anything else you were looking for? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
i dont think the postfix is needed for use_{enable,with}: |
| 16 |
usex() { use $1 && echo ${2:-yes} || echo ${3:-no} ; } |
| 17 |
use_enable() { usex $1 --enable-${2:-$1}${3:+=}$3 --disable-${2:-$1} ; } |
| 18 |
use_with() { usex $1 --with-${2:-$1}${3:+=}$3 --without-${2:-$1} ; } |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
although adding it to usex is cheap, simplifies the other helpers a little, |
| 21 |
and might get used in more creative ways i cant imagine right now: |
| 22 |
usex() { use $1 && echo ${2:-yes}$4 || echo ${3:-no}$5 ; } |
| 23 |
use_enable() { usex $1 --{en,dis}able-${2:-$1} "${3:+=}$3" ; } |
| 24 |
use_with() { usex $1 --with{,out}-${2:-$1} "${3:+=}$3"; } |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
so unless there's any other feedback, i'll open an EAPI bug on the topic and |
| 27 |
merge it to eutils.eclass |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives