On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:45:45 -0400 Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetrom...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 22:45 -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:43:32 -0400 > > Alexandre Rostovtsev <tetrom...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > The variables that vala_pkg_setup sets are needed only at build > > > time. > > > > so it should be vala_src_prepare / unpack instead ? > > definitely not anything pkg_* imho > > IMHO src_prepare or src_unpack would be misleading because the > function does not modify the package's source and has nothing to do > with unpacking. it creates files as far as i understood the code; the point of vala.eclass is to prepare the environment for building the package, right ? you can probably get a valid point for a src_setup phase in a future eapi, but so far with current eapi, src_prepare seems the best choice > It's not an unusual idiom to set various environment > variables in pkg_setup even if those variables are relevant only at > build time; gnome-extra/zeitgeist and xfce4-vala/xfce4-vala are > typical examples that already export VALAC in their pkg_setup(). lots of bad examples does not make it good :) this is just wasted cpu cycles for binpkgs, moreover these two examples only set a variable and call type -P; the eclass does set a couple more of variables and writes to $T anyway its your call, but given that the eclass is only useful for building it seems bad practices to put its code in a pkg_ phase.
