On 8/17/14, 9:18 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-08-17, o godz. 09:06:04 > "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): >> The warning would make the problem more visible to ebuild writers. Then >> we already have a solution that works, i.e. explicitly defining the >> phase function in the ebuild, possibly calling the eclass functions. >> >> My understanding is people not being aware of the problem is the main >> issue here, not the ability to address it. > > What we could do is printing the phase function names when starting > them, e.g.: > > >>> [foo_src_compile] Compiling sources in ... > > As for another idea, we could warn if an eclass overrides phase > function via implicit inherit without redefining it. As I see it, this > is the biggest issue here, and a solution that's relatively easy to > accept.
Both of these sound good to me. Paweł
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
