On Sunday 07 March 2010 14:08:29 Petteri Räty wrote:
> On 03/07/2010 08:36 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 March 2010 13:31:56 Petteri Räty wrote:
> >> On 03/07/2010 07:42 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Saturday 06 March 2010 02:11:15 Petteri Räty wrote:
> >>>> On 03/05/2010 08:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>>>> sometimes i have optional patches (ignoring the "patches should
> >>>>> always be applied") where autotools should be run. always
> >>>>> inheriting autotools is currently annoying because it always adds
> >>>>> the related dependencies. USE based inherits are obviously out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> so unless there's some burgeoning standard i'm not aware of, below is
> >>>>> what i have in mind. packages set AUTOTOOLS_AUTO_DEPEND to "no"
> >>>>> before inheriting autotools.eclass and that allows them to put
> >>>>> ${AUTOTOOLS_DEPEND} behind a USE flag in their own DEPEND string.
> >>>>
> >>>> What we use in Java is JAVA_PKG_OPT_USE to declare what use flag the
> >>>> DEPENDs should be under. This approach doesn't allow the ebuild
> >>>> maintainer to forget adding the depends.
> >>>
> >>> i'm more inclined towards Jonathan's opinion, so ive kept the proposed
> >>> behavior (plus a fix from Torsten).
> >>
> >> And what about my latest response to him?
> >
> > considering your proposal saves ${FOO} in DEPEND, it hasnt changed my
> > opinion
>
> Why would it be better to require ebuild writers to have do it
> themselves instead of the eclass automatically taking care of it?as Jonathan mentioned, it gives explicit control via multiple USE flags which your way does not -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
