On Tuesday 24 of August 2010 10:30:12 Michał Górny wrote: > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 19:36:50 +0200 > > Maciej Mrozowski <reave...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If SCons is unpredictable, then don't provide *any* phases and only > > functions and rename it to scons-utils to match its purpose. > > It is as predictable as the buildsystem meeting the default phase > functions requirements -- we can configure it, compile it but no way of > knowing what should be done in 'install' for sure. > > > What I hate is deliberately introduced inconsistency in ebuild API's. > > What I hate is replicating bad practices just because someone else did > that before. If I'm wrong, then please point me the relation between > a particular buildsystem and patching.
Ideologically there's none, but practically build system may need patching in eclass to fit Gentoo needs. And it's better to do it officially in eclass src_prepare phase than hack around elsewhere. Either provide all buildsystem related phases or none - I'm already tired of playing "guess which phase from which eclass takes precedence when multiple inheritance is used" game. -- regards MM
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
