[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gentoo-dev
Subject:    Re: [gentoo-dev] some multilib-minimal enhancements [4/6]: ubiquitous multilib-<phase>-all callbacks
From:       Greg Turner <gmt () malth ! us>
Date:       2013-12-11 23:47:37
Message-ID: CA+VB3NTvvG7xyukkewuOS=SwDzJjSGj1SLXDX6rXTyOKf3H-cA () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny <mgorny@gentoo.org>=
 wrote:
>> This patch adds multilib_src_{configure,compile,test}_all
>> callbacks, analogous to the existing multilib_src_install_all
>> callback.
>
> No real benefit in having those.

There is no fundamental semantic benefit I can think of; indeed, as
pointed out above, the "portage-standard"
phase-function-implementation-override +
direct-invocation-of-overridden-phase-function recipe has slightly
greater semantic power.  However, subjectively speaking, I feel that
using the multilib_<phase>_all callbacks make for cleaner and easier
to follow code.  My thinking was that providing two ways to achieve
the same thing should be harmless -- ebuild authors are, after all,
coding bash scripts to run in a UNIX-like environment, so hopefully
they are comfortable choosing between multiple-ways-to-do-it :)

However, I'm not so attached to this patch that I'd put up a big fight
over it; my overlay doesn't use them, and they are, strictly-speaking,
superfluous.

-gmt

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]