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 81BDD1387FD for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:15:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2A629E0996; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 90893E0928 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:15:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.223] (20.146.16.95.dynamic.jazztel.es [95.16.146.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pacho) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E0C0333FF04 for ; Sun, 8 Jun 2014 19:15:22 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1402254918.3631.4.camel@belkin5> Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] EAPI6 Features From: Pacho Ramos To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2014 21:15:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: <21396.30067.503349.626165@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> References: <21396.30067.503349.626165@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.2 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: d3c952c8-8343-477e-9b97-48a2df313975 X-Archives-Hash: 65281ad81c5f3338ce90de218168ebbd El dom, 08-06-2014 a las 16:38 +0200, Ulrich Mueller escribió: [...] > >> d) Source eclasses only once > >> Bug #422533 > > > Does anybody still want this included? It seems to me like the list > > discussion was leading in a different direction, but it isn't 100% > > clear to me if this is the case. > > Right, discussion has died down. Many eclasses now use a mechanism > equivalent to the one in C header files, which seems to do the job. > Last time I checked, there were still some eclasses not doing that (either the "spank" way or the way from python -r1 eclasses). Not sure if this was intended and why that eclasses are pending :/ If there is no technical issue in fixing them (probably with the way used in python eclasses ;)), why not simply go ahead and fix them? (not sure how could we check for this issue in future eclasses that could be added without this tricks included)