| 1 |
On Wednesday 30 May 2012 20:18:11 Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 05/25/2012 09:20 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday 24 May 2012 16:04:30 Zac Medico wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On 05/24/2012 12:20 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> >>> Rather than copying & pasting the same behavior for the |
| 6 |
> >>> different eclass checks, add a common class for them to extend. |
| 7 |
> >>> This makes adding more eclass checks trivial, and keeps down |
| 8 |
> >>> bitrot. |
| 9 |
> >>> |
| 10 |
> >>> This does abuse the checking interface slightly -- the eclass |
| 11 |
> >>> will change its category between unused and missing based on |
| 12 |
> >>> the checks. |
| 13 |
> >> |
| 14 |
> >> Looks good to me. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > i'll push this now while we hammer out the "complete" solution |
| 17 |
> > since these get pretty good coverage right now |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Do you want to support EGIT_BOOTSTRAP settings prior to inherit? |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> For example, dev-libs/polylib/polylib-9999.ebuild triggers |
| 22 |
> inherit.missing because InheritEclass currently expects the inherit to |
| 23 |
> occur before the EGIT_BOOTSTRAP="eautoreconf" setting. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
i don't think we need to support that level of detection. it's a fairly |
| 26 |
extreme edge case, and we can just let the git eclass say "allow implicit |
| 27 |
autotools eclass inclusion" all the time. |
| 28 |
-mike |
Archives