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 E840B138010 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:25:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 005B521C1B6; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:25:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 228CE21C1B2 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:23:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.169.32.2] (212-226-75-61-nat.elisa-mobile.fi [212.226.75.61]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: ssuominen) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BCDC233D751; Wed, 31 Oct 2012 16:23:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <50914F75.6050100@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 18:19:01 +0200 From: Samuli Suominen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120916 Thunderbird/15.0.1 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 To: Alexis Ballier CC: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gentoo-x86/eclass: udev.eclass References: <20121030190839.A9A3D21600@flycatcher.gentoo.org> <20121030191725.GC809@gentoo.org> <20121030211657.GE809@gentoo.org> <509044F9.5080901@gentoo.org> <20121031120440.0575d0df@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <20121031120440.0575d0df@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: f94efd69-f074-4dd2-a533-b60dc9803794 X-Archives-Hash: fa7da1194a363716a82400c2a3bc23ce On 31/10/12 17:04, Alexis Ballier wrote: > 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. > Was talking with the systemd/systemd.eclass maintainer in IRC. The -n was dropped as a conclusion of the discussion from both eclasses.