[gentoo-dev] Re: Default src_install for EAPI-2 or following EAPI

[Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk>]

Ulrich Mueller wrote:

>>>>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008, Steve Long wrote:
> 
>> That works for that specific case, yes, but it's still not a general
>> solution, which is what BASH arrays were invented for. For instance,
>> an ebuild author cannot specifically include a file with spaces, and
>> ignore all the other files in the same directory.
> 
> The better solution would be to rename a such strange files ...
> How about an "edetox"? ;-)
>
Heh, I like the name (it brings lots of ideas to mind, none of them very
achievable ;) but you get into the issue that you're changing the upstream
naming, which goes against the principle of source transparency I
personally love. It makes dealing with upstream projects much easier.
 
> And I still don't see why we would need the most general solution for
> a *default* function. There's always the possibility to write your own
> src_install() for the few ebuilds that need it.
> 
? Generality for lib functions seems like a desirable attribute to me.
If we handle the general case with the defaults, it means less need for
anyone to write more code, allowing them to focus on the interesting stuff
and keeping the tree smaller. If we never have to worry about whether the
base will cope with filenames, and only about quoting our own stuff, it
makes development quicker.