В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
>
> > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}"
>
> while you're here, i'd change to:
> : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}}

Why? This looks less readable...

--
Peter.

On 09/16/2010 09:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> + if [[ -f ${D}/usr/bin/fox-config ]] ; then
>> + mv "${D}/usr/bin/fox-config" "${D}/usr/bin/fox-${FOXVER}-config"
>> fi
>
> seems like you would want || die here

Why? I can't imagine how that could fail.

On Thursday, September 16, 2010 16:24:14 Matti Bickel wrote:
> On 09/16/2010 09:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> + if [[ -f ${D}/usr/bin/fox-config ]] ; then
> >> + mv "${D}/usr/bin/fox-config" "${D}/usr/bin/fox-${FOXVER}-config"
> >>
> >> fi
> >
> > seems like you would want || die here
>
> Why? I can't imagine how that could fail.

then the `die` should never be called
-mike

On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:41:27 Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
> > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}"
> >
> > while you're here, i'd change to:
> > : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}}
>
> Why? This looks less readable...

only because your eyes arent tuned to it
-mike

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:34:17 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:41:27 Peter Volkov wrote:
> > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
> > > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}"
> > >
> > > while you're here, i'd change to:
> > > : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}}
> >
> > Why? This looks less readable...
>
> only because your eyes arent tuned to it

What exactly is the advantage though? Is it something to do with command vs
assignment?


--
fonts, gcc-porting, we hold our breath, we spin around the world
toolchain, wxwidgets you and me cling to the outside of the earth
@ gentoo.org EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

On Thursday, September 16, 2010 23:51:21 Ryan Hill wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:34:17 -0400 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:41:27 Peter Volkov wrote:
> > > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
> > > > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}"
> > > >
> > > > while you're here, i'd change to:
> > > > : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}}
> > >
> > > Why? This looks less readable...
> >
> > only because your eyes arent tuned to it
>
> What exactly is the advantage though? Is it something to do with command
> vs assignment?

i guess if you like typing the same variable name twice, then the old style is
for you. i do not like.
-mike

В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
> On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:41:27 Peter Volkov wrote:
> > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
> > > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}"
> > >
> > > while you're here, i'd change to:
> > > : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}}
> >
> > Why? This looks less readable...
>
> only because your eyes arent tuned to it

Instead of explicit variable assignment (what was intended) you suggest
to call `:` command and implicitly assign variable with bash parameter
expansion...

--
Peter.

On Friday, September 17, 2010 01:06:19 Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
> > On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:41:27 Peter Volkov wrote:
> > > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет:
> > > > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}"
> > > >
> > > > while you're here, i'd change to:
> > > > : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}}
> > >
> > > Why? This looks less readable...
> >
> > only because your eyes arent tuned to it
>
> Instead of explicit variable assignment (what was intended) you suggest
> to call `:` command and implicitly assign variable with bash parameter
> expansion...

what exactly is your point ? there is no performance difference. my style
suggestion however is significantly more compact and has no redundancy.
-mike

Must admit that I have no idea of what "fox" is at all, but:

On 09/16/2010 08:32 PM, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 16:24 +0200, Matti Bickel пишет:
>> - elibtoolize
>> + eautoreconf
>
> Hm, is this change necessary?

The obvious reason for eautoreconf here is:
fox_src_prepare() updates configure.{ac,in} and Makefile.am's just before.

The non-obvious reason is:
Ebuilds may have to patch these files too for random (usually prefix) platforms.

Iff not eautoreconf but elibtoolize were done here, the ebuild would have to do the
eautoreconf itself, which doesn't work right now[1] when elibtoolize was called before.

[1] http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=232820

/haubi/
--
Michael Haubenwallner
Gentoo on a different level