On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 23:04:06 Brian Harring wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:45:27PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 19:08:09 Brian Harring wrote:
> > > While a bit longer, we likely can gut most of the use_* logic to
> > > use that, and it makes it easier to deal w/ the situations where a
> > > configure's options always assume --enable-blah thus don't export the
> > > option, but *do* export a --disable-blah.
> >
> > yeah, i thought about replacing use_{with,enable} with usex, but we'd
> > have to extend usex() a little bit more
>
> Only extension I can think of is adding a prefix/postfix... which
> frankly seems a bit too much. Anything else you were looking for?
i dont think the postfix is needed for use_{enable,with}:
usex() { use $1 && echo ${2:-yes} || echo ${3:-no} ; }
use_enable() { usex $1 --enable-${2:-$1}${3:+=}$3 --disable-${2:-$1} ; }
use_with() { usex $1 --with-${2:-$1}${3:+=}$3 --without-${2:-$1} ; }
although adding it to usex is cheap, simplifies the other helpers a little,
and might get used in more creative ways i cant imagine right now:
usex() { use $1 && echo ${2:-yes}$4 || echo ${3:-no}$5 ; }
use_enable() { usex $1 --{en,dis}able-${2:-$1} "${3:+=}$3" ; }
use_with() { usex $1 --with{,out}-${2:-$1} "${3:+=}$3"; }
so unless there's any other feedback, i'll open an EAPI bug on the topic and
merge it to eutils.eclass
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
