| 1 |
Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 11:24 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz: |
| 2 |
> On 10:01 Sun 08 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 16:48 Sun 08 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:42:29 -0700 |
| 5 |
> > > Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > - I understand the reasoning for the SRC_CONFIGURE_WITH blah stuff. I |
| 7 |
> > > > strongly oppose this implementation because it makes ebuilds less |
| 8 |
> > > > like bash scripts that are easy to understand. Instead I suggest |
| 9 |
> > > > extending use_with() and use_enable() to accept multiple sets of |
| 10 |
> > > > arguments (alternately, making custom, similar functions that will |
| 11 |
> > > > take multiple args). |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > How would that work? I can't see an obvious way of doing it that isn't |
| 14 |
> > > more or less as verbose as just using multiple calls. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > It would just eliminate all but one call to use_with(). Depending on how |
| 17 |
> > many you've got, this can shorten things up a fair bit. Here's an |
| 18 |
> > example: |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > econf \ |
| 21 |
> > $(use_with 'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk') |
| 22 |
> > econf \ |
| 23 |
> > $(use_with x X) \ |
| 24 |
> > $(use_with foo libfoo) \ |
| 25 |
> > $(use_with bar) \ |
| 26 |
> > $(use_with python pygtk) |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> And the straightforward evolution of this would be additional with() and |
| 29 |
> enable() functions for mandatory support. I still find this more |
| 30 |
> intuitive than the set of variables. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> econf \ |
| 33 |
> $(use_with 'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk') \ |
| 34 |
> $(with foo bar blah baz) \ |
| 35 |
> $(enable bam paw tick) |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Which could already be written as ... |
| 39 |
econf --with-{foo,bar} |
| 40 |
using bash :-) |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
(or did I miss the point?) |
Archives