On 19:27 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 10:01 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> > It would just eliminate all but one call to use_with(). Depending on how
> > many you've got, this can shorten things up a fair bit. Here's an
> > example:
> >
> > econf \
> > $(use_with 'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk')
>
> The above could be rewritten to:
>
> ECONF_USE_WITH="'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk'"
> econf $(use_with ${ECONF_USE_WITH})
Why would I want to obfuscate my code like that by purposely making
people look in multiple places to figure out what it's doing? I don't
see how this is any improvement.
> or an eclass could even export this:
>
> src_configure() {
> [ -n ${ECONF_USE_WITH} ] && USE_WITH="$(use_with
> \"${ECONF_USE_WITH}\")"
> econf ${USE_WITH}
> }
>
> Guessing from what I see in the gnome/kde eclasses I think people will
> implement the above then in eclasses and I therefore don't see why we
> can't do it like that from the beginning...
If it can be implemented in an eclass, why would we want to do it as an
EAPI in a package manager? Eclasses can be easily changed, you only need
to write them once, and you don't have to deal with updating & approving
a spec and new implementation for a bug in the previous implementation
(which you have to retain indefinitely).
--
Thanks,
Donnie
Donnie Berkholz
Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
pgpEIwaNLiQmh.pgp
Description: PGP signature
