On 19:35 Sun 08 Mar , Tiziano Müller wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 08.03.2009, 11:24 -0700 schrieb Donnie Berkholz:
> > On 10:01 Sun 08 Mar , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > On 16:48 Sun 08 Mar , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 09:42:29 -0700
> > > > Donnie Berkholz <dberkh...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > > > - I understand the reasoning for the SRC_CONFIGURE_WITH blah stuff. I
> > > > > strongly oppose this implementation because it makes ebuilds less
> > > > > like bash scripts that are easy to understand. Instead I suggest
> > > > > extending use_with() and use_enable() to accept multiple sets of
> > > > > arguments (alternately, making custom, similar functions that will
> > > > > take multiple args).
> > > >
> > > > How would that work? I can't see an obvious way of doing it that isn't
> > > > more or less as verbose as just using multiple calls.
> > >
> > > It would just eliminate all but one call to use_with(). Depending on how
> > > many you've got, this can shorten things up a fair bit. Here's an
> > > example:
> > >
> > > econf \
> > > $(use_with 'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk')
> > > econf \
> > > $(use_with x X) \
> > > $(use_with foo libfoo) \
> > > $(use_with bar) \
> > > $(use_with python pygtk)
> >
> > And the straightforward evolution of this would be additional with() and
> > enable() functions for mandatory support. I still find this more
> > intuitive than the set of variables.
> >
> > econf \
> > $(use_with 'x X' 'foo libfoo' 'bar' 'python pygtk') \
> > $(with foo bar blah baz) \
> > $(enable bam paw tick)
> >
>
> Which could already be written as ...
> econf --with-{foo,bar}
> using bash :-)
>
> (or did I miss the point?)Consistency, and that gets pretty ugly after a few when you also want to pass arguments to them. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com
pgpijeydm3D5W.pgp
Description: PGP signature
