Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] lua.eclass

[Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov]

Thanks a lot for your review work and critics.

Just 2 cents as comments about "why the hell is going on":

> It looks like a terrible masterpiece combination of base.eclass with
python.eclass

Actually, ruby-ng + python + some of that opera. And all of them was 
(actually, still) huge monsters with tons of magic.

I mean, the eclass (in my point of view, not really counted LOC) is 70% copied 
from ruby-ng/python eclasses, 10% "unneded" magic crap and 20% is my own work.

And main target was to... Just to write less code in the ebuilds and let 
eclass do all the magic, like ruby/perl/python/php eclsses does.


> Kill it with fire. Start over. Focus on Lua. Stop reinventing
> everything else, and attempting to convert ebuilds into some terrible
> openrc-class semi-broken declarative crap which attempts to guess what
> the developer meant.

Ok, I'll try. Although, I guess, I then fail to reach the target of having 
less code in the ebuilds as a price of being done in a right way :)

And I want to mention just once more time, that actual target was to have as 
less code in ebuilds as possible, like it is for ruby-ng, perl and python 
packages. But it seems, I turned in wrong direction somewhere.

=== semiofftopic ===

By the way, some packages authors doing monster buildsystems which is non 
intended to work with distro's package managers, and says users must use 
language-specific package manager (gem,pip,luarocks,whatever), which is fully 
supported by them.

And if previously I was supporting the point that langname-modules should be 
installed system-wide through portage, then now (after having tons of sex with 
their buildsystems just to make it to obey gentoo's practice (say, like not 
doing network operations during src_prepare/configure/compile)) I'm in doubts.

=== / ===


-- 
wbr,
mva