| 1 |
On 27 June 2011 03:20, Maciej Mrozowski <reavertm@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
>> I personally prefer tabs, but I also like using EAPI="<version>", |
| 3 |
>> sorting everything alphabetically and even use the following depend blocks: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> *DEPEND=" |
| 6 |
>> !<X-2.0 |
| 7 |
>> !Y |
| 8 |
>> <A> |
| 9 |
>> <B> |
| 10 |
>> ... |
| 11 |
>> <Z> |
| 12 |
>> a? ( <X> ) |
| 13 |
>> b? ( <Y> ) |
| 14 |
>> c? ( |
| 15 |
>> <J> |
| 16 |
>> <K> |
| 17 |
>> ) |
| 18 |
>> " |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> ^^ is actually the main point of my "ebuild formatting nazi" agenda (usually |
| 21 |
> followed by "oh why did you break formatting in my shiny ebuild!11, revert!" |
| 22 |
> chants by various developers in case I happened to touch packages of theirs). |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I never understood the reason after keeping deps not sorted alphabetically |
| 25 |
> where order doesn't matter - it's like someone purposely made ebuild harder to |
| 26 |
> read - it's counter productive. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
In the case where upstream also have a rather well structured |
| 30 |
dependency list that is prone to change ( ie: perl modules ) I've |
| 31 |
found it beneficial to keep the dependencies in the same order as they |
| 32 |
use upstream. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Makes it much easier to check later and makes it much easier to notice |
| 35 |
when they add a dependency |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Kent |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 41 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz |
Archives