On 21:22 Sun 08 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 23:35 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote: > > Well, the point I'm trying to make here is a different one: The syntax > > you proposed is more to write but still equivalent to the one using > > vars. And looking at the ebuilds - taking G2CONF as an example - it > > seems that people don't have a problem with putting their config > > options into vars. And furthermore with your syntax you still have to > > write out "econf $(use_with ...)" explicitly while adding it the > > conf-vars to a var (as proposed) makes the complete src_configure > > function obsolete, allows the usage of the default > > src_configure/src_compile/src_install (see > > http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_17e6ae8082aeb762fd01ba7307457789.xml > > > > for example) and is therefore even shorter to write. > > I think the idea of ebuilds as scripts showing directly how to build > software is a core part of the Gentoo build-system philosophy. This > proposal pushes ebuilds toward a formatted file that is not a script. > Instead, it is more like an Ant XML file that more abstractly describes > a build. I think this is the wrong direction for ebuilds because they > should directly resemble how software is built by hand. > > One of the key reasons people use Gentoo is that ebuilds are so easy to > "get" for anyone who has ever built software by hand. I will continue to > vehemently defend anything that I think retains this key advantage of > Gentoo over other distributions.
To return to the original point of this whole thread, your goal was to get EAPI=3 through fairly quickly without tons of controversial points. I don't think this component qualifies. Feel free to bring it up again for 4. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
pgpD63RqCvGov.pgp
Description: PGP signature
