On Mon, 09 Jul 2012 11:21:21 +0300
Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@gentoo.org> wrote:
> yet base.eclass supports arguments for base_src_install passed to
> 'make install'
>
> and council voted against moving this to the PM
>
> so what ciaranm said is very true, people just refuse to let it
> become useless

Perhaps you should view the Council's vote as advice that passing
arguments that way is unpopular and unlikely to endear you to your
fellow developers.

--
Ciaran McCreesh

On Mon, 9 Jul 2012 08:39:38 +0200
Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 17:35:08 -0400
> Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 22:10:02 +0200
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:49:25 +0200
> > > René Neumann <lists@necoro.eu> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like just to receive a short clarification about the
> > > > 'status' of base.eclass: Is this eclass expected to be available
> > > > everywhere, i.e. should each eclass make sure it imports and
> > > > incorporates it. Or is it just an eclass like the others and
> > > > ebuilds should make sure they inherit it if needed?
> > >
> > > No. It is unmaintained, has serious design flaws and it simply
> > > should not be used anywhere. At least in EAPI != [01].
> > >
> >
> > what is the PATCHES=() replacement in new eapis? (mainly why i use
> > base.eclass more and more these days)
>
> That's what I used:
>
> [[ ${PATCHES} ]] && epatch "${PATCHES[@]}"
>


and ? thanks, I can read the code
are you suggesting people to duplicate the code ? this is in no way a
replacement...

A.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 07/09/2012 08:45 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 23:40:29 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel"
> <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>> Am Sonntag 08 Juli 2012, 22:10:02 schrieb Michał Górny:
>>> On Sun, 08 Jul 2012 19:49:25 +0200
>>>
>>> René Neumann <lists@necoro.eu> wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like just to receive a short clarification about the
>>>> 'status' of base.eclass: Is this eclass expected to be
>>>> available everywhere, i.e. should each eclass make sure it
>>>> imports and incorporates it. Or is it just an eclass like the
>>>> others and ebuilds should make sure they inherit it if
>>>> needed?
>>>
>>> No. It is unmaintained, has serious design flaws and it simply
>>> should not be used anywhere. At least in EAPI != [01].
>>
>> Please clarify this.
>>
>> A lot of (inheriting eclasses and) packages depend on features
>> provided by base.eclass (e.g., PATCHES), which are pretty neat
>> and which I would sorely miss. So I would certainly object to
>> deprecating base.eclass, unless its relevant functionality is
>> only moving to a better place.
>
> base.eclass is randomly exporting non-requested, non-wanted phase
> functions colliding with other inherited eclasses. It's just the
> lexical order of inherits what stops mayhem from happening.
>
> In other words, base.eclass is only suitable if you are expecting
> to export *all* phase functions which simply doesn't happen in
> eclasses.
>
> For example, if distutils used base eclass, every VCS eclass
> inherited before it would be ignored (due to src_unpack() redefined
> to default one for no good reason).
>

There are tons of eclasses "randomly" exporting phase functions. That
is not the problem. The problem is that other eclasses inherit
base.eclass. Only that leads to this mess.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJP+tmXAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWz2JMH/AwYoHvD9vIBhSSDCQ6np/L5
NzDHuKcqUKKQ5bs9+gHWSf81lFaazu9mw187d1o016nD6TQ1rP jbulQhU9ZLuCt1
qDGBAH1j1vPOktstxzkAXWRzkmbkGir9hz5Mw8WO+AXvcHa5sP 4stiaNQyL6ZKhe
hhfLkZC+ToZP8CcW7yeS8nC910bvDV9hVfNxsBOMR/EKY/aSnHcsfOf4c3pCX9xd
YrrEvoT9zdx9827sk8+PO4m4kAZsvjem7IiTTa+LRH1wPf5DBp jL19c0pSyHF3Kc
kBDL4BFrT4lqoNhO0vDXL45AVRsKz2/G0Tu7XLg2ewwCZByPpPlGR277wLjRo44=
=DaE5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----