| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:00:19PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 17:29 Wed 14 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On 19:14 Tue 13 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:02:28PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 6 |
> > > > > On 17:56 Tue 13 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 7 |
> > > > > > useful enough for EAPI ? or should i just stick it into eutils.eclass |
| 8 |
> > > > > > ? OR BOTH !? |
| 9 |
> > > > > |
| 10 |
> > > > > I prefer to avoid EAPI whenever possible, as it just makes things slower |
| 11 |
> > > > > and more complex. |
| 12 |
> > > > |
| 13 |
> > > > Exactly the wrong approach; it winds up with master |
| 14 |
> > > > repositories/overlays cloning the functionality all over the damn |
| 15 |
> > > > place. |
| 16 |
> > > |
| 17 |
> > > Why are people cloning anything if it's in eutils.eclass in gentoo-x86? |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > There are more repositories than just gentoo-x86, and overlay is *not* |
| 20 |
> > the only configuration in use. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Who else besides you is using any other configuration? Should we really |
| 23 |
> give a crap about the 0.001% population with some weird setup when we're |
| 24 |
> trying to improve things for the 99.999% one? |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Specious argument; the point of controllable stacking was to avoid the |
| 27 |
issue of overlay's forcing their eclasses upon gentoo-x86 ebuilds |
| 28 |
(which may not support those modified eclasses) via the old |
| 29 |
PORTDIR_OVERLAY behaviour. This is why multiple repositories have |
| 30 |
layout.conf master definitions- to explicitly mark that they |
| 31 |
require/consume a seperate repo. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
What you're basically proposing is a variation of the "push format |
| 34 |
definitions into a central tree, and require everyone to use that |
| 35 |
central tree". This discussion has come and gone; I say that being |
| 36 |
one of the folks who was *pushing for the repository solution*. The |
| 37 |
problem there is it fundamentally enables (more forces) fragmentation. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Realistically I assume you're taking the stance "EAPI gets in the way, |
| 40 |
lets do away with it"- if so, well, out with it, and I'll dredge up |
| 41 |
the old logs/complaints that lead to EAPI. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
> > In the old days of the PM only handling a single overlay stack, what |
| 45 |
> > you're suggesting would be less heinous- heinous in detail, but |
| 46 |
> > pragmatic in reality. These days it's a regressive approach- |
| 47 |
> > requiring everyone to slave gentoo-x86 isn't sane, nor is avoiding |
| 48 |
> > eapi (resulting in people having to duplicate code into each |
| 49 |
> > repository stack). |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> I don't know many people who aren't using gentoo-x86 or a repo that |
| 52 |
> pulls in changes directly from it. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
rephrase please; either you're saying "everyone uses gentoo-x86" which |
| 55 |
is sort of true (funtoo/chrome aren't necessarily riding HEAD/trunk |
| 56 |
however which means things can get ugly for derivative repository |
| 57 |
usage), but still ignores the situations where people have overlays |
| 58 |
w/ developmental eclasses that they need to selectively control where |
| 59 |
it overrides (which is where the notion of repo stacking comes into |
| 60 |
play). |
| 61 |
~brian |
Archives