On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:00:20 -0500
Donnie Berkholz <[email protected]> wrote:

> >  # @FUNCTION: remove_libtool_files
> > -# @USAGE: [all|none]
> > +# @USAGE: [all|only-not-required|none]
> 
> Is there a way to document the arguments of eclass functions? You
> added the name of the arg but didn't describe its purpose or why
> anyone would want to use it.
> 
> On a semantic note, that argument name (only-not-required) doesn't
> make sense to me. I might do something more helpful like
> pkgconfig-duplicates instead.

I thinked about 'as-needed' or sth like that. Maybe the new argument
should be (temporarily) not public instead?

> > +   if [[ "$1" == 'only-not-required' ]]; then
> 
> This is way more quoting than you need within double brackets.

It's nice visual quoting, just to match the others.

> >     local f
> >     for f in $(find "${D}" -type f -name '*.la'); do
> >             # Keep only .la files with shouldnotlink=yes -
> > likely plugins local shouldnotlink=$(sed -ne
> > '/^shouldnotlink=yes$/p' "${f}") if [[  "$1" == 'all' || -z
> > ${shouldnotlink} ]]; then
> > +                   if [[ "$1" == 'only-not-required' ]]; then
> 
> Is there a case where one of those arguments might be $2 but you'd
> still want to run this?

Er? What are you referring to?

> I feel like that shouldnotlink thing is really confusing the logic, 
> because there's multiple nested tests for different values of $1 in
> here instead of just testing the args once at the top and setting
> variables.

As mentioned earlier, the code needs to be refactored. First things
first, then we'll rewrite it to be nice and clean. I don't really want
to waste time doing this if we would need to rewrite it for more logic
in the future.

> > +                           # remove .la files only when .pc
> > files provide the libs
> > +                           # already or they don't give any
> > information
> > +                           ! has $(basename "${f}")
> > ${pc_libs} \
> > +                                           && [[ -n "$(sed -n
> > \
> 
> The comment says "or" but I see an "and" here.

Because everything's negated here. Boolean magic :D.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to