Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-17 Thread Michael Haubenwallner
Must admit that I have no idea of what "fox" is at all, but: On 09/16/2010 08:32 PM, Peter Volkov wrote: > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 16:24 +0200, Matti Bickel пишет: >> - elibtoolize >> + eautoreconf > > Hm, is this change necessary? The obvious reason for eautoreconf here is: fox_src_prep

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Friday, September 17, 2010 01:06:19 Peter Volkov wrote: > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет: > > On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:41:27 Peter Volkov wrote: > > > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет: > > > > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}" > > > > > > > > whil

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Peter Volkov
В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 18:34 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет: > On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:41:27 Peter Volkov wrote: > > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет: > > > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}" > > > > > > while you're here, i'd change to: > > > : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}} > > > > Why? Th

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday, September 16, 2010 15:41:27 Peter Volkov wrote: > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет: > > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}" > > > > while you're here, i'd change to: > > : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}} > > Why? This looks less readable... only because your eyes arent tuned to it -mi

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday, September 16, 2010 16:24:14 Matti Bickel wrote: > On 09/16/2010 09:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > >> + if [[ -f ${D}/usr/bin/fox-config ]] ; then > >> + mv "${D}/usr/bin/fox-config" "${D}/usr/bin/fox-${FOXVER}-config" > >> > >>fi > > > > seems like you would want || die

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Matti Bickel
On 09/16/2010 09:29 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: >> +if [[ -f ${D}/usr/bin/fox-config ]] ; then >> +mv "${D}/usr/bin/fox-config" "${D}/usr/bin/fox-${FOXVER}-config" >> fi > > seems like you would want || die here Why? I can't imagine how that could fail. signature.asc Descri

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Peter Volkov
В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 15:29 -0400, Mike Frysinger пишет: > > > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}" > > while you're here, i'd change to: > : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}} Why? This looks less readable... -- Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Thursday, September 16, 2010 14:51:39 Matti Bickel wrote: > +#1.6: 'x11-libs/fox:1.6' > +# 1.7: '~x11-libs/fox-${PV}' first line is using a tab while second is spaces. both should be tabs. > FOX_PV="${FOX_PV:-${PV}}" while you're here, i'd change to: : ${FOX_PV:=${PV}} > for

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Matti Bickel
On 09/16/2010 08:32 PM, Peter Volkov wrote: > В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 16:24 +0200, Matti Bickel пишет: >> +FOXVER=`get_version_component_range 1-2 ${FOX_PV}` > > It's better to prefer $() style over ``: > http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/082 Hmm, I prefer Backticks personally, as I like to conserve

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Peter Volkov
В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 16:24 +0200, Matti Bickel пишет: > +FOXVER=`get_version_component_range 1-2 ${FOX_PV}` It's better to prefer $() style over ``: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashFAQ/082 > if [ "${PN}" != fox ] ; then > FOX_COMPONENT="${FOX_COMPONENT:-${PN}}" > fi > > -if [ "${FOXVER}

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Peter Volkov
В Чтв, 16/09/2010 в 17:44 +0200, Jeroen Roovers пишет: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:41:30 -0500 > Jeremy Olexa wrote: > > > * econf doesn't need to "|| die" > > Is that a novelty change? Most of the tree still does econf || die ... econf is function that dies on its own. But still there is one cas

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:44:00 +0200, Jeroen Roovers wrote: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:41:30 -0500 > Jeremy Olexa wrote: > >> * econf doesn't need to "|| die" > > Is that a novelty change? Most of the tree still does econf || die ... It is just extra (not needed) code. econf() has died by itself s

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Matti Bickel
On 09/16/2010 04:41 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote: > Hey Matti, few quick things. Thanks, all done. FOXCONF is now documented (though not set by default). Updated diff and eclass attached. # Copyright 1999-2005 Gentoo Foundation # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 # $Header

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Jeroen Roovers
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 09:41:30 -0500 Jeremy Olexa wrote: > * econf doesn't need to "|| die" Is that a novelty change? Most of the tree still does econf || die ... jer

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Jeremy Olexa
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:24:18 +0200, Matti Bickel wrote: > On 09/16/2010 03:31 PM, Matti Bickel wrote: > -- > Now complete with attachments :) Hey Matti, few quick things. * Can you add eclass-manpages documentation? * econf doesn't need to "|| die" * What is the mysterious FOXCONF variable in ec

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Matti Bickel
On 09/16/2010 03:31 PM, Matti Bickel wrote: -- Now complete with attachments :) # Copyright 1999-2005 Gentoo Foundation # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2 # $Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/eclass/fox.eclass,v 1.8 2008/10/12 12:31:36 mabi Exp $ # fox eclass # # Thi

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Tomáš Chvátal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dne 16.9.2010 15:31, Matti Bickel napsal(a): > Posting this for review as the diff is rather largish and I'm known to > have the usual typo in it ;) Your mail lacks the attachment :) Tom -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (GNU/Linux)

[gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2010-09-16 Thread Matti Bickel
Hi folks, The fox eclass accumulated a lot of cruft over the years. Specifically, it includes quite a bit of code to support versions loong gone from our tree. The only officially supported versions now are 1.6 and 1.7. Thus, I've edited it a bit. Main points are EAPI2 phase support and a lot of

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2009-02-09 Thread Nirbheek Chauhan
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Matti Bickel wrote: >> eautomake dies on its own. You don't need || die here. > > Thanks for the comments, WANT_AUTO* was specified to make some previous > commenter happy, but removed now ;) > > Where was that 'which functions || die on their own' table, anyway?

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2009-02-09 Thread Matti Bickel
Peter Volkov wrote: > В Вск, 08/02/2009 в 23:06 +0100, Matti Bickel пишет: > > +# could probably be lower > > +WANT_AUTOCONF="latest" > > +WANT_AUTOMAKE="latest" > > These are defaults. You don't need to specify them. > > > + eautomake || die "automake error" > > eautomake dies on its own

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2009-02-09 Thread Peter Volkov
В Вск, 08/02/2009 в 23:06 +0100, Matti Bickel пишет: > +# could probably be lower > +WANT_AUTOCONF="latest" > +WANT_AUTOMAKE="latest" These are defaults. You don't need to specify them. > + eautomake || die "automake error" eautomake dies on its own. You don't need || die here. -- Peter.

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2009-02-08 Thread Matti Bickel
Hi, shame on me, here i'm wondering why noone replies... Sorry, i failed to send the updated patch o.O Here's the patch again w/ your suggestions included. -- Regards, Matti Bickel Signed/Encrypted email preferred (key 4849EC6C) --- /usr/portage/eclass/fox.eclass 2008-10-12 14:36:35.0

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2008-10-14 Thread Bo Ørsted Andresen
> --- gentoo-x86/eclass/fox.eclass 2008-10-12 14:31:36.0 +0200 > +++ fox-proposed.eclass 2008-10-13 20:27:05.0 +0200 > [...] > -inherit eutils libtool versionator > > +inherit autotools eutils libtool versionator You should probably be setting WANT_AUTO* before inheriti

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2008-10-13 Thread Matti Bickel
Donnie Berkholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 13:56 Mon 13 Oct , Petteri Räty wrote: > > Could you also send a diff next time. > > Or this time, even. +1 on that. Here you are. It's attached. > One easy thing to do is move what comments exist to the eclass-manpages > format. I also inclu

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2008-10-13 Thread Donnie Berkholz
On 13:56 Mon 13 Oct , Petteri Räty wrote: > Could you also send a diff next time. Or this time, even. +1 on that. One easy thing to do is move what comments exist to the eclass-manpages format. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2008-10-13 Thread Petteri Räty
Matti Bickel kirjoitti: > Hi folks, > > While fixing bug #240060 I touched fox.eclass. > In the process, I updated the eclass to > * use versionator > * cut support for fox-1.0 (loong outdated) > * cut support for fox-1.5 > * use eautomake instead of =automake-1.4* > * use ema

[gentoo-dev] RFC: fox.eclass update

2008-10-12 Thread Matti Bickel
Hi folks, While fixing bug #240060 I touched fox.eclass. In the process, I updated the eclass to * use versionator * cut support for fox-1.0 (loong outdated) * cut support for fox-1.5 * use eautomake instead of =automake-1.4* * use emake instead of make * use elog instead