1 |
Dnia 2014-08-17, o godz. 10:32:14 |
2 |
Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> napisał(a): |
3 |
|
4 |
> So if you could sculpt it to be broader by default and have less scope for |
5 |
> developer error, that'd be an improvement. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> --- code start -- |
8 |
> ECLASS_EXCLUDE="foo_src_unpack bar_src_unpack" |
9 |
> inherit foo bar baz |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
> --- code end --- |
13 |
> |
14 |
> here, src_unpack would be baz_src_unpack *regardless* of composition order |
15 |
> because "foo" and "bar" were barred from being used, and baz took |
16 |
> precedence as a result. |
17 |
|
18 |
Wow, so you suggest replacing a solution where you have to re-declare |
19 |
all the phases with one in which you have to opt-out of all phases of |
20 |
all eclasses... |
21 |
|
22 |
This thread spreads more great ideas every minute. Soon enough, we will |
23 |
ban eclasses and require every ebuild to write everything inline just |
24 |
to be sure. Preferably using kernel calls from assembly to avoid as much |
25 |
middleware as possible, and make ebuilds as verbose as possible. |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
Best regards, |
29 |
Michał Górny |