On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 17:08:07 -0300
Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 21:57:11 +0200
> Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 30/10/12 21:56, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > > On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 19:08:39 +0000 (UTC)
> > > "Samuli Suominen (ssuominen)" <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >>
> > >> case ${EAPI:-0} in
> > >> 	0|1|2|3|4) ;;
> > >> 	*) die "${ECLASS}.eclass API in EAPI ${EAPI} not yet
> > >> established." esac
> > >
> > > sounds like a useless and annoying check for just exporting one
> > > function
> > >
> > >>
> > >> RDEPEND=""
> > >
> > > useless?
> > 
> > if the ebuild is EAPI=0 or EAPI=1 then DEPEND expands to RDEPEND, so 
> > setting empty RDEPEND prevents that, or am I missing something?
> 
> even with eclasses and inheritence ? maybe you're right but i wouldnt
> bet anything
> 
> > 
> > >
> > >> DEPEND="virtual/pkgconfig"
> > >>
> > >> # @FUNCTION: _udev_get_udevdir
> > >> # @INTERNAL
> > >> # @DESCRIPTION:
> > >> # Get unprefixed udevdir.
> > >> _udev_get_udevdir() {
> > >> 	if $($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --exists udev); then
> > >> 		echo -n "$($(tc-getPKG_CONFIG) --variable=udevdir
> > >> udev)" else
> > >> 		echo -n /lib/udev
> > >> 	fi
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> # @FUNCTION: udev_get_udevdir
> > >> # @DESCRIPTION:
> > >> # Output the path for the udev directory (not including ${D}).
> > >> # This function always succeeds, even if udev is not installed.
> > >> # The fallback value is set to /lib/udev
> > >> udev_get_udevdir() {
> > >> 	has "${EAPI:-0}" 0 1 2 && ! use prefix && EPREFIX=
> > >> 	debug-print-function ${FUNCNAME} "${@}"
> > >>
> > >> 	echo -n "${EPREFIX}$(_udev_get_udevdir)"
> > >> }
> > >
> > > local foo=""
> > > unfold _udev_get_udevdir there, replacing 'echo -n' by foo=
> > > printf ...$foo
> > >
> > > kill the extra internal fucntion that seems useless.
> > > echo isn't really reliable for precise formatting, prefer printf
> > > when it matters. (in this case it doesn't matter but seems good
> > > practices)
> > >
> > > have you checked what is the udevdir value on prefix, if at all
> > > relevant ? I fear a double prefix issue.
> > >
> > 
> > the code is more or less same as systemd.eclass has, I don't want to 
> > diverge too much from that since we are essentially dealing with the 
> > same package (tarball)
> 
> well, two bad do not make a good
> consider the above remarks to apply to systemd.eclass too then, and
> either explain why they're not relevant or apply them to both eclasses
> if you want to avoid divergence.

Don't even try to touch any of my eclasses without prior asking.

And the additional internal function there was used in order to get
unprefixed path for do*() and new*() functions.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny