On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Vaeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But it doesn't do this well, because it is incompatible with any other > case. Assume, for example, that you have an ebuild in this manner and > that for the new release or for a bugfix you need a small non-included > thing - then this means that you have to rewrite the ebuild almost > completely. The suggestion violates in an extreme way the golden design > rule that small changes in effect should require small changes in source. > Moreover, a second syntax is introduced which everybody has learn, > although it could be done as easily by the standard commands. > >
Yes, you're right. That would be really tedious and stupid... but we're lucky, and EAPI-2 introduced the 'default' function. So if you need to do a small change not covered by this method, you just define the phase, make the little change, and then call the 'default' function. Clean and simple. In any case, I guess people are not considering this change for EAPI-2. I think we'll come up with a more extense proposal which could be targeted for EAPI-3. Regards, -- Santiago M. Mola Jabber ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
