From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KcqCl-0006ST-Rp for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 23:31:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CE520E0572; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:31:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from an-out-0708.google.com (an-out-0708.google.com [209.85.132.248]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B10C4E0572 for ; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 23:31:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c28so356704ana.47 for ; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.213.4 with SMTP id l4mr16407625ang.108.1220916693761; Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.40.7 with HTTP; Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 16:31:33 -0700 From: "Alec Warner" Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Ability to pass arguments to src_configure/src_compile In-Reply-To: <20080908230322.GD20548@comet> 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=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20080907164015.1a7b4f8e@googlemail.com> <48C40575.6030202@gentoo.org> <20080908213350.GC20548@comet> <20080908231325.0846cead@snowmobile> <20080908230322.GD20548@comet> X-Google-Sender-Auth: b5b5de76ec2c9e20 X-Archives-Salt: beb6bfb5-fb1d-423d-8a1a-32f715847673 X-Archives-Hash: 9e8fba939d7af686349b71b9215dc203 On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 4:03 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 23:13 Mon 08 Sep , Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 14:33:50 -0700 >> Donnie Berkholz wrote: >> > On 12:46 Sun 07 Sep , Marcus D. Hanwell wrote: >> > > I personally agree with several others who have replied to this >> > > thread. The reduction in lines of code/characters seems to >> > > introduce an uglier syntax which is harder to read with >> > > questionable benefits. >> > >> > One of the great things about ebuilds is that they're very natural to >> > write in most cases, if you can manage to build the program by hand. >> > Raising this barrier of entry for questionable benefit seems like a >> > bad idea. We don't need to make it any harder to begin contributing >> > to Gentoo. >> >> So why are we making people know the exact ins and outs of >> reimplementing default functions, complete with knowledge of whether or >> not to use die, when all they need in most cases is to set a simple >> variable instead? > > This series of variables and syntaxes within them doesn't seem much > simpler than functions. From what I understand, it also conflates > multiple concepts into a single variable name (the function name, > whether it's USE-dependent, and how the configure flag is passed). > >> What proportion of people do you think know whether or not you need a >> die with econf or emake? How many user-written ebuilds out there >> correctly install the right docs and don't try to install docs that >> don't exist, deal with install parallelisation correctly and handle >> error cases properly? > > You're right, following all of the policy takes work. What I'm talking > about is an entry-level ebuild hack that just gets people in the door > and is the reason a lot of people love Gentoo. We are not making them use this syntax; nothing stops them using the other one. -Alec > > -- > Thanks, > Donnie > > Donnie Berkholz > Developer, Gentoo Linux > Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com >