Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 23:31 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz: > 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.
Wanted to say the same thing. Removed from the list.
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
