On 02/25/2015 05:55 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Julian Ospald wrote: > >> +<warning> >> +You must not rely on provided functions of implicitly inherited eclasses. > > Not sure if this can be stated as a general policy. For example, if > your ebuild inherits elisp.eclass then it is pointless to inherit also > elisp-common.eclass, because it is guaranteed (and documented) that > all the functions of the latter will also be available when inheriting > the former. >
Yes, see blow. >> +As an example: if you use <c>epatch</c> in your ebuild, you <b>must</b> >> +inherit <c>eutils.eclass</c> directly, even if another eclass (like >> distutils-r1) >> +already inherits it. Exceptions to this policy must be discussed and >> documented. >> +</warning> > > Documented, maybe. But I don't want to discuss a feature of my > eclasses which is in place since more than a decade and works > flawlessly. > What wording do you suggest instead? Maybe "Exceptions to this policy are documented in the respective eclasses"?
