| 1 |
On 07/08/2012 11:10 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:49:25 +0200 |
| 3 |
> René Neumann <lists@××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 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 |
|
| 17 |
yet base.eclass supports arguments for base_src_install passed to 'make |
| 18 |
install' |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
and council voted against moving this to the PM |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
so what ciaranm said is very true, people just refuse to let it become |
| 23 |
useless |
Archives