| 1 |
On 09:37 Wed 21 Sep , Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Not really, because when you update a bundled lib you actually make |
| 4 |
> > your whole app compile with it. People change the APIs of eclasses |
| 5 |
> > and then just let every internal consumer (ebuilds in gentoo-x86) |
| 6 |
> > break. Maybe if we put the burden on the one who changed the API, |
| 7 |
> > like the Linux kernel model, it would bother me less. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I think people do this for three reasons. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> 1) There are no refactoring tools that I know of for bash. |
| 12 |
> 2) There exist some package maintainers that will yell at you if you |
| 13 |
> touch their packages for any reason. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
To refer to the Linux model again, you send patches to the maintainers, |
| 16 |
and they just commit them. This is much less effort than figuring out to |
| 17 |
handle some incomprehensible change to an already weird eclass and then |
| 18 |
sorting out how to deal with it across 20 or 30 packages. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> 3) Breaking things means they get fixed. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> We have this notify -> deprecate -> break workflow; I actually don't |
| 23 |
> mind it (but only because I've seen it used elsewhere.) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I do, because I don't have time to deal with other people breaking my |
| 26 |
packages, whether they're in gentoo-x86, the science overlay, or my |
| 27 |
personal one. I've got more important things to deal with, within Gentoo |
| 28 |
and in the rest of my life. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Thanks, |
| 32 |
Donnie |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 35 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer |
| 36 |
Gentoo Linux |
| 37 |
Blog: http://dberkholz.com |
Archives