From: hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 05:22:43 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51299593.1010902@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51296027.705@gentoo.org>
Before people start asking I should explain why I started this:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=458638
I think having such an eclass has several advantages over
autootools-multilib.eclass (which depends on autotools-utils.eclass) as
it is now:
a) Less eclass dependencies. One could argue: the more eclasses my
ebuild uses the more prone to error and exposed to changes it is.
b) easier conversion in some cases: often times a simple rename
src_compile -> multilib_src_compile will do
c) it allows more custom definition of phase functions
d) the previous point will also allow to convert go-mono.eclass packages
without introducing yet another eclass for that
e) autotools-utils.eclass does a bit more than just calling default
phase functions; the developer has little choice on this matter unless
he wants to rewrite his ebuild based on multilib-build.eclass which will
create a lot of code duplication in ebuilds, hence this proposition
I don't have a problem with the present eclasses, but I find this a
logical enhancement.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-24 4:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-24 0:34 [gentoo-dev] New eclass: autotools-multilib-minimal hasufell
2013-02-24 4:22 ` hasufell [this message]
2013-02-24 10:06 ` Michał Górny
2013-02-24 10:11 ` Diego Elio Pettenò
2013-02-24 14:17 ` hasufell
2013-02-24 14:33 ` Pacho Ramos
2013-02-27 13:01 ` Samuli Suominen
2013-02-27 20:13 ` Michał Górny
2013-02-27 20:15 ` Pacho Ramos
2013-02-24 14:57 ` Michał Górny
2013-02-24 15:12 ` hasufell
2013-02-24 15:12 ` Pacho Ramos
2013-02-24 15:53 ` Michał Górny
2013-02-24 16:21 ` Pacho Ramos
2013-02-24 16:28 ` Alexis Ballier
2013-02-24 16:58 ` Samuli Suominen
2013-02-24 18:56 ` Michał Górny
2013-02-24 19:40 ` hasufell
2013-02-24 18:05 ` [gentoo-dev] " Jonathan Callen
2013-02-24 18:18 ` Michał Górny
2013-02-24 16:22 ` [gentoo-dev] " Alexis Ballier
2013-02-24 16:42 ` hasufell
2013-02-24 18:46 ` Alexis Ballier
2013-02-24 22:39 ` Samuli Suominen
2013-02-28 1:06 ` hasufell
2013-02-28 8:30 ` Michał Górny
2013-02-28 15:16 ` hasufell
2013-03-02 2:50 ` hasufell
2013-03-02 15:07 ` Michał Górny
2013-03-02 15:13 ` hasufell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51299593.1010902@gentoo.org \
--to=hasufell@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox