| 1 |
On Thu, 13 Jun 2013 18:48:21 -0400 |
| 2 |
Chris Reffett <creffett@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 5 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On 06/13/2013 06:37 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 8 |
> >> At the beginning of July, the KDE team will be removing EAPI 0/1 |
| 9 |
> >> support from cmake-utils.eclass and inlining the functions from |
| 10 |
> >> base.eclass in order to remove that inherit [1]. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > So, instead of fixing what you consider wrong in base.eclass, you |
| 13 |
> > inline it so that if someone improves base.eclass he has to do it |
| 14 |
> > for cmake-utils too? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> We did not actually inline most of the complicated logic from |
| 17 |
> base.eclass, as to the best of my knowledge epatch itself will handle |
| 18 |
> all of the corner cases that base_src_prepare covers. The new patching |
| 19 |
> code essentially consists of [[ ${PATCHES[@]} ]] && epatch |
| 20 |
> "${PATCHES[@]}"; epatch_user. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
that kind of stuff sounds more like it should be factorized rather than |
| 23 |
copied all around; be it base.eclass, an EAPI, or another eclass I |
| 24 |
don't really care. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
there's also a base_src_install_docs call in current cmake-utils.eclass |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Alexis. |
Archives