On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:28:08AM +0100, Rainer Müller wrote: > I like the idea, but I also have some bad feelings with this. The > callbacks are run after the Portfile is evaluated, so the end result > cannot be influenced or overridden anymore.
Yes, I am aware of the issue. If a callback changes something that would require another round of callbacks to be run, that doesn't work. However, if everybody writing these callbacks is aware of this, it shouldn't be a problem. This is also the reason why I wouldn't declare this a public API. > I think this could be integrated with the existing target_* > infrastructure. The callbacks would be registered from global scope > using a new proc target_callbacks into the ditem and then some helper > proc targets_run_callbacks would be called from macports1.0. What's the benefit of doing this? It seems a lot more complex to me than what we currently have, but maybe I'm just not seeing the beauty of this yet. -- Clemens Lang _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
