1 |
On 8/17/14, 9:18 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
> Dnia 2014-08-17, o godz. 09:06:04 |
3 |
> "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@g.o> napisał(a): |
4 |
>> The warning would make the problem more visible to ebuild writers. Then |
5 |
>> we already have a solution that works, i.e. explicitly defining the |
6 |
>> phase function in the ebuild, possibly calling the eclass functions. |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> My understanding is people not being aware of the problem is the main |
9 |
>> issue here, not the ability to address it. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> What we could do is printing the phase function names when starting |
12 |
> them, e.g.: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> >>> [foo_src_compile] Compiling sources in ... |
15 |
> |
16 |
> As for another idea, we could warn if an eclass overrides phase |
17 |
> function via implicit inherit without redefining it. As I see it, this |
18 |
> is the biggest issue here, and a solution that's relatively easy to |
19 |
> accept. |
20 |
|
21 |
Both of these sound good to me. |
22 |
|
23 |
Paweł |