Well for myself I found compromise. Although in both proposals as I see
you've omitted part where you'll discuss how you are going to implement
this feature, implementing this feature as eclass addresses most of my
concerns, since:
1. ebuild's syntax does not change
2. people will have to inherit
Hello,
El dom, 09-11-2008 a las 15:39 +0300, Peter Volkov escribió:
>
> 1. Functions we have now are much more flexible then proposed arrays. Do
> I need to think of some example of code that is impossible to do with
> arrays but still possible with functions?
>
The same concern was raised in t
On Sun, Nov 09, 2008 at 03:39:12PM +0300, Peter Volkov wrote:
> В Сбт, 08/11/2008 в 17:20 -0500, Thomas Anderson пишет:
> > This is a reposting of a call for discussion on DEFAULT_* variables.
> > The original discussion was at [1].
> 1. Functions we have now are much more flexible then proposed ar
В Сбт, 08/11/2008 в 17:20 -0500, Thomas Anderson пишет:
> This is a reposting of a call for discussion on DEFAULT_* variables.
> The original discussion was at [1].
How does this proposal answers concerns raised during last discussion?
I did my best and reread all the discussions and both proposa
Thomas Anderson schrieb:
> src_install:
> All I want changed here is a variable for a list of
> extra docs to be
> installed. This'll require a default function for
> src_install and I propose:
>
[RFC] Simplifying functions with variables and help from the PM
Hello All;
This is a reposting of a call for discussion on DEFAULT_* variables.
The original discussion was at [1]. The general idea is making the
default functions support some new variables so that they are m
