Matti Bickel wrote: > And while your proposal sounds more compliant to the DRY principle, i > would object it on the basis that it makes a single ebuild actually > harder to understand as you have to read (1) eclasses, (2) -base.ebuild > and (3) -version.ebuild.
That's quite exactly what I wanted to write - plus this -base.ebuild thingy would only make sense if we also allow versioning of -base.ebuilds. And then we're quickly speaking of package-based eclasses instead of "-base.ebuilds". If we're speaking of a list of whishes for 2009 - i'd prefer to see eclass versioning instead of -base.ebuilds ;) Tobias
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
