| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 14:20 Tue 20 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 10:16:46PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > OK, so the implication of what you're saying is that everything in |
| 5 |
>> > eutils.eclass, base.eclass, toolchain-funcs.eclass, |
| 6 |
>> > flag-o-matic.eclass, versionator.eclass, multilib.eclass, |
| 7 |
>> > prefix.eclass, savedconfig.eclass, and maybe even linux-info.eclass |
| 8 |
>> > and autotools{,-utils}.eclass should go into EAPI. All that stuff is |
| 9 |
>> > pretty generally useful features. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Approximately... yes. Some of that (base.eclass for example) is EAPI |
| 12 |
>> compatibility that can't be folded in (would require retroactively |
| 13 |
>> addding to an EAPI), others aren't yet stabilized (true multilib for |
| 14 |
>> example, seems to still be under discussion), etc. |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> You get the jist. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Yep, and I'm completely on the opposite end of the spectrum. =) |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
>> > > They should, but api compatibility of an eclass *can* be fluid- in |
| 21 |
>> > > the past it was a locked API purely because of portage environment |
| 22 |
>> > > saving issues. That's been resolved, there isn't any strict |
| 23 |
>> > > requirement that the eclass maintain API compat now. You're |
| 24 |
>> > > trying to rely on people doing best practices- for format building |
| 25 |
>> > > blocks (use_with/usex/unpack/etc), that's not sane. |
| 26 |
>> > |
| 27 |
>> > Which still pisses me off. It's like a shared library changing its |
| 28 |
>> > API without bumping SONAME. |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> I think you're viewing this wrong; if we're talking about openssl |
| 31 |
>> breaking API/ABI w/out bumping soname, sure. It's one component that |
| 32 |
>> is distributed alone, but consumed by others. There is no way to |
| 33 |
>> atomically deploy the new API at the same time as all of the consumers |
| 34 |
>> being updated for it. |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> That is /not/ the case of gentoo-x86; eclasses for us are equivalent |
| 37 |
>> to bundled libs. Overlay stacking just makes it possible for a third |
| 38 |
>> party component to reach in and use what is effectively an internal |
| 39 |
>> lib. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> Not really, because when you update a bundled lib you actually make your |
| 42 |
> whole app compile with it. People change the APIs of eclasses and then |
| 43 |
> just let every internal consumer (ebuilds in gentoo-x86) break. Maybe if |
| 44 |
> we put the burden on the one who changed the API, like the Linux kernel |
| 45 |
> model, it would bother me less. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
I think people do this for three reasons. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
1) There are no refactoring tools that I know of for bash. |
| 50 |
2) There exist some package maintainers that will yell at you if you |
| 51 |
touch their packages for any reason. |
| 52 |
3) Breaking things means they get fixed. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
We have this notify -> deprecate -> break workflow; I actually don't |
| 55 |
mind it (but only because I've seen it used elsewhere.) |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
-A |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> -- |
| 60 |
> Thanks, |
| 61 |
> Donnie |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> Donnie Berkholz |
| 64 |
> Council Member / Sr. Developer |
| 65 |
> Gentoo Linux |
| 66 |
> Blog: http://dberkholz.com |
| 67 |
> |
Archives