On Jun 27, 2012, at 6:51 PM, Marc Weber <marco-owe...@gmx.de> wrote:
> Excerpts from Shea Levy's message of Thu Jun 28 00:38:16 +0200 2012: >> Ok. Why was builderDefs rejected? What problems do you see with it, and what >> do others see? > What does reject mean? Eelco has said on a few occasions that new packages should not use builderDefs, IIRC. > I'd say it was not adopted (by me yet) because > the existing monolitic setup.sh works good enough - I have my templates > and its fastest for me. That's why I didn't spend more time on it. > > And if there was a change it would be ok to have different scripts until > there is a big "let's recompile all" change - then everything could be > updated to use the latest version of setup.sh > > Problems? You can't say "this phase must be run before configure", can > you? Not sure how often this case happens. > > Marc Weber > _______________________________________________ > nix-dev mailing list > nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl > http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev _______________________________________________ nix-dev mailing list nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev
