From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LgNg8-0005dc-LX for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Mar 2009 18:24:48 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 94DAFE0391; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 18:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E5A6E0391 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 18:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gentoo.org (c-98-246-79-112.hsd1.or.comcast.net [98.246.79.112]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AEAA64C86 for ; Sun, 8 Mar 2009 18:24:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 8 Mar 2009 11:24:46 -0700 From: Donnie Berkholz To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Ideas for a (fast) EAPI=3 Message-ID: <20090308182446.GI14240@comet> References: <1236498557.6854.51.camel@neuromancer> <20090308164228.GG14240@comet> <20090308164806.1d3fa1d7@snowcone> <20090308170104.GH14240@comet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="wjoFZxbW4tu+iR6v" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090308170104.GH14240@comet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-Archives-Salt: 48a69855-5145-414e-ac45-41154f65fad4 X-Archives-Hash: 571bb90d97a862d2f8716af9184c5592 --wjoFZxbW4tu+iR6v Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 10:01 Sun 08 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 16:48 Sun 08 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:42:29 -0700 > > Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > - I understand the reasoning for the SRC_CONFIGURE_WITH blah stuff. I= =20 > > > strongly oppose this implementation because it makes ebuilds less > > > like bash scripts that are easy to understand. Instead I suggest > > > extending use_with() and use_enable() to accept multiple sets of > > > arguments (alternately, making custom, similar functions that will > > > take multiple args). > >=20 > > How would that work? I can't see an obvious way of doing it that isn't > > more or less as verbose as just using multiple calls. >=20 > It would just eliminate all but one call to use_with(). Depending on how= =20 > many you've got, this can shorten things up a fair bit. Here's an=20 > example: >=20 > econf \ > $(use_with 'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk') > econf \ > $(use_with x X) \ > $(use_with foo libfoo) \ > $(use_with bar) \ > $(use_with python pygtk) And the straightforward evolution of this would be additional with() and=20 enable() functions for mandatory support. I still find this more=20 intuitive than the set of variables. econf \ $(use_with 'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk') \ $(with foo bar blah baz) \ $(enable bam paw tick) --=20 Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com --wjoFZxbW4tu+iR6v Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkm0DW4ACgkQXVaO67S1rtuvGgCg5eSTLePHjYq4w8lO/tnek93E uPYAoI0wwmZkmS22WcgauIFZ7NB0sBru =x46k -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --wjoFZxbW4tu+iR6v--