On Thu, 6 Nov 2014 22:32:17 +0100
Jeroen Roovers <j...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 06 Nov 2014 12:40:33 -0800
> Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On 11/06/2014 12:11 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > # multilib.eclass collisions
> > > get_libdir() { future_get_libdir "${@}"; }
> > > # eutils.eclass collisions
> > > einstalldocs() { future_einstalldocs "${@}"; }
> >
> > This collision handling mechanism seems pretty reasonable.
> > Alternatively, maybe it could die if the functions are already
> > defined, and advise the developer that future should be inherited
> > later than multilib and eutils.
>
> I'm not aware of any current definition of order in eclass
> inheritance. We sure have issues with inheriting eclasses in a
> different order giving different results now. Is this something
> that's in the works for a future EAPI, then?An EAPI solution to this is hard to work out. It would be much easier if people just stopped writing "clever" eclasses and didn't mix utility functions and phase functions within a single eclass. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
