From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7AC138010 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:05:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B3B3621C198; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:05:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC2A121C190 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:04:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.89.69.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D27533D855; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 15:04:49 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 12:04:40 -0300 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: Samuli Suominen Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/eclass: udev.eclass Message-ID: <20121031120440.0575d0df@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <509044F9.5080901@gentoo.org> References: <20121030190839.A9A3D21600@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <20121030191725.GC809@gentoo.org> <20121030211657.GE809@gentoo.org> <509044F9.5080901@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.13; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 2a294a67-1976-4a99-8566-79209a07dc58 X-Archives-Hash: beb0bfd59b338dffb91ebc02b3bbea42 On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:22:01 +0200 Samuli Suominen wrote: [...] > One of the commits was before anything was said to ML (the EAPI > change), the comment was later but the commenter didn't notice it > just got fixed minutes before that. > > I didn't ignore anything, but pointed this thread and the comments to > mgorny since the exact same EPREFIX code is in systemd.eclass too. If > you think this is incorrect, I would expect prefix@ maintainers to > provide a patch to correct it. That's why a review is usually useful... > And as I already pointed out, i'll be reusing the internal function > later on in the ebuild just like systemd.eclass does, like for > example, $(udev_do_rules_d) function. Please show the code. As of now, the internal function is only obfuscating a bit the code. This is obviously another order of magnitude in terms of complexity but I do not want to have pyth... err udev-ng, udev-ng-r1, udev-r1 eclasses :) > We discussed also the conversion from echo to printf and saw it > unnecessary. Who is we? And why? I believe the -n to echo is not useful, so better drop it entirely instead of wrongly making people believe not having a newline matters.