Re: [gentoo-dev] Ideas for a (fast) EAPI=3

[Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1501 bytes --]

On 19:27 Sun 08 Mar     , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 10:01 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> > It would just eliminate all but one call to use_with(). Depending on how 
> > many you've got, this can shorten things up a fair bit. Here's an 
> > example:
> > 
> > 	econf \
> > 		$(use_with 'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk')
> 
> The above could be rewritten to:
> 
> ECONF_USE_WITH="'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk'"
> econf $(use_with ${ECONF_USE_WITH})

Why would I want to obfuscate my code like that by purposely making 
people look in multiple places to figure out what it's doing? I don't 
see how this is any improvement.

> or an eclass could even export this:
> 
> src_configure() {
> 	[ -n ${ECONF_USE_WITH} ] && USE_WITH="$(use_with
> \"${ECONF_USE_WITH}\")"
> 	econf ${USE_WITH}
> }
> 
> Guessing from what I see in the gnome/kde eclasses I think people will
> implement the above then in eclasses and I therefore don't see why we
> can't do it like that from the beginning...

If it can be implemented in an eclass, why would we want to do it as an 
EAPI in a package manager? Eclasses can be easily changed, you only need 
to write them once, and you don't have to deal with updating & approving 
a spec and new implementation for a bug in the previous implementation 
(which you have to retain indefinitely).

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]