On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 03:57:59 +1100 Michael Palimaka <kensing...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 02/01/16 03:41, Michał Górny wrote:
> > ---
> > eclass/scons-utils.eclass | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/eclass/scons-utils.eclass b/eclass/scons-utils.eclass
> > index a2a6884..e1b3a1b6 100644
> > --- a/eclass/scons-utils.eclass
> > +++ b/eclass/scons-utils.eclass
> > @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
> > -# Copyright 1999-2012 Gentoo Foundation
> > +# Copyright 1999-2015 Gentoo Foundation
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> > # $Id$
> >
> > @@ -17,19 +17,19 @@
> > # EAPI=4
> > #
> > # src_configure() {
> > -# myesconsargs=(
> > +# MYSCONS=(
> > # CC="$(tc-getCC)"
> > # $(use_scons nls ENABLE_NLS)
> > # )
> > # }
> > #
> > # src_compile() {
> > -# escons
> > +# escons "${MYSCONS[@]}"
> > # }
> > #
> > # src_install() {
> > # # note: this can be DESTDIR, INSTALL_ROOT, ... depending on package
> > -# escons DESTDIR="${D}" install
> > +# escons "${MYSCONS[@]}" DESTDIR="${D}" install
> > # }
> > # @CODE
> >
> >
>
> What is the benefit of MYSCONS vs myesconsargs? The latter seems to be
> more consistent with other eclasses (mycmakeargs, myqmakeargs, ...)
It's shorter and follows the convention of keeping global variables
uppercase.
Consistency with bad example set by one eclass is not a good argument.
In fact, cmake-utils sets a very bad example of enforcing declarative
model over function-oriented ebuilds which results in really absurd
src_configure() implementations.
src_configure() {
local mycmakeargs=(
...
)
cmake-utils_src_configure
}
vs
src_configure() {
local myconf=(
...
)
ecmake "${myconf[@]}"
}
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~mgorny/>
pgpDqcT01tKvz.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
