On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:45:45 -0400
Alexandre Rostovtsev <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-08-26 at 22:45 -0400, Alexis Ballier wrote:
> > On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 19:43:32 -0400
> > Alexandre Rostovtsev <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > The variables that vala_pkg_setup sets are needed only at build
> > > time.
> > so it should be vala_src_prepare / unpack instead ?
> > definitely not anything pkg_* imho
> IMHO src_prepare or src_unpack would be misleading because the
> function does not modify the package's source and has nothing to do
> with unpacking.
it creates files as far as i understood the code;
the point of vala.eclass is to prepare the environment for building
the package, right ?
you can probably get a valid point for a src_setup phase in a
future eapi, but so far with current eapi, src_prepare seems the best
> It's not an unusual idiom to set various environment
> variables in pkg_setup even if those variables are relevant only at
> build time; gnome-extra/zeitgeist and xfce4-vala/xfce4-vala are
> typical examples that already export VALAC in their pkg_setup().
lots of bad examples does not make it good
this is just wasted cpu cycles for binpkgs, moreover these two examples
only set a variable and call type -P; the eclass does set a couple
more of variables and writes to $T
anyway its your call, but given that the eclass is only useful for
building it seems bad practices to put its code in a pkg_ phase.