| 1 |
On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 13:45:50 -0700 |
| 2 |
Diego Elio Pettenò <flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 16/08/2012 13:45, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > We can remove it from eutils when it gets into EAPI (i.e. make |
| 7 |
> > conditional to older EAPIs). This will keep things both usable |
| 8 |
> > and clean. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I still don't like it — I definitely don't like changing the approach |
| 11 |
> midway and halfway. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> So my 2 cents here keep saying "no". |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Well, in that case it is pointless to add it to EAPI since almost no |
| 16 |
ebuild will use it. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The main benefit of these functions is to eclasses which now inline |
| 19 |
the same code. I really don't see them replacing: |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
( |
| 22 |
insinto /foo |
| 23 |
doins $@ |
| 24 |
) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
with: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
case $EAPI in |
| 29 |
5) |
| 30 |
dointo /foo $@ |
| 31 |
;; |
| 32 |
*) |
| 33 |
( |
| 34 |
insinto /foo |
| 35 |
doins $@ |
| 36 |
) |
| 37 |
;; |
| 38 |
esac |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
What's the point of simplifications which actually make things |
| 41 |
harder? |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
Best regards, |
| 45 |
Michał Górny |
Archives