Duncan wrote: > Ciaran McCreesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted >> Having to write an ebuild just to install something in a package manager >> friendly way and be able to uninstall it cleanly later is a defect, not >> a feature. > I've always rather liked that I can tell someone in -dev-help or -chat "If you can build it from source, it's simple to make an ebuild. A lot of the time you don't even need anything more than a few bash variables." So in that sense I consider asking someone to do a little bit to be a good thing, since it gets them over the first hurdle for contributing (and gives them a Gentoo buzz.) > Impressively stated, but it still doesn't get past the simple open > accessibility bit, letting the user-sysadmin do simple real-time > modifications of how the package appears on and interacts with the > individual system. > I agree with the spirit of what you're saying. Taking the detail from your other post: > it may be optional, but that doesn't help much if all the > simple ebuilds he finds to crib from end up using the pre-knowledge > required vars, leaving him nothing simple to crib from without that > knowledge. The accessibility level will have been reduced if this > happens.
Yeah, but I don't think this would become the overriding method. Even if it did, in terms of what developers, or indeed automated tools, produce, the old method would, of necessity, always be allowed, and should be documented in the "stages of an ebuild" part of a devmanual. Understanding of the classic method is _required_ to make use of the declarative one, which is just syntactic sugar for the classic econf/configure parameters. (I still think the original patch is better, ofc ;)
