| 1 |
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:02:28PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 17:56 Tue 13 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > useful enough for EAPI ? or should i just stick it into eutils.eclass |
| 4 |
> > ? OR BOTH !? |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I prefer to avoid EAPI whenever possible, as it just makes things slower |
| 7 |
> and more complex. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Exactly the wrong approach; it winds up with master |
| 10 |
repositories/overlays cloning the functionality all over the damn |
| 11 |
place. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Do both. Specifically, do it right- get it into the format (so |
| 14 |
it can be relied on and isn't adhoc BS that proceeded EAPI), then |
| 15 |
push a compat implementation into eclasses for usage by EAPI's less |
| 16 |
than 5. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
You get the feature now, and it's sorted properly for moving forward. |
| 19 |
Not that complex. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And yes I'm tired of people bitching about compatibility. I recall a |
| 22 |
similar group of folk bitching about the lack of compatibility prior |
| 23 |
to EAPI... it's annoying. |
| 24 |
</rant> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
~brian |
Archives