On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 8:12 AM, hasufell wrote:
>
> I think the first thing to do and which already happened with e.g.
> qmake-utils.eclass is to make a very strong distinction between utility
> eclasses and those that export phase functions.
>
Discussion on IRC the other day was moving in this
William Hubbs:
> All,
>
> I spoke with mgorny on IRC and found out what his concerns are about our
> current eclasses.
>
> First, he thinks we should get rid of base.eclass.
>
> I know there is work going on to get rid of it, but I haven't really
> looked into the status much yet. I do agree tho
On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:38 AM, William Hubbs wrote:
>
> The other concern he mentioned was indirectly inherited eclasses being
> able to override phase functions.
>
So, while I'm not sure whether getting rid of the ability to inherit
phase functions is practical/good/etc, I do think we need to
All,
I spoke with mgorny on IRC and found out what his concerns are about our
current eclasses.
First, he thinks we should get rid of base.eclass.
I know there is work going on to get rid of it, but I haven't really
looked into the status much yet. I do agree though, we shouldn't have a
general-
