Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: udev.eclass

[Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org>]

On 30/10/12 22:18, Michał Górny wrote:
> 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.
>

same as i'll propably reuse the function for something like 
$(do_udev_rules) later on

the udev.eclass might have one function now, but that's just a 
rudementary start to drop most of the duplication from ebuilds