Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Matti Bickel <mabi@g.o>
Subject: RFC: Reviving GLEP33
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 11:56:08 +0200
Hi folks,

I've been told that my use of eblits in dev-lang/php is something I
should get rid of as soon as possible. Suggested alternative by ferring:
use elibs.

So here goes: I want to see GLEP33[1] implemented in portage, so I can
shift the eblits core and currently global functions into elibs and
probably push the eblits I use for php into the same structure.

Basic question: what needs to be done to get this GLEP accepted and
implemented (it's current status is moribound)?

I extracted a list of things we (or rather the portage and all other PM
teams) need to do:

(1) create elibs() function to enable importing elibs
(2) extend repoman to handle new style elibs and eclass signing/checking
(3) profit ;)

Also, there're some question I have:
(1) The GLEP (under "The reduced role of Eclasses,[...]") speaks of
"Cases where the constant [metadata] requirement is violated are known"
- who exactly are the current offenders?

(2) What's the dev community feeling on "The end of backwards
compatibility..." section in the GLEP? Personal opinion: when the
council reached consensus that old eclasses can be removed with due
last-rites, this section became obsolete. Just putting new-style
eclasses in their own dirs in eclass/ might again be an option. Please
discuss.

(3) Continuing with (2) do you feel we still need to provide a eclass
compat build (tarball) to users *still* not using a sane portage
version? If no, section "The start of a different phase of backwards
compatibility" can probably be stripped from the GLEP.

I silently assumed that our infra servers are running >=portage-2.1.4.4
here.

Instead of all the backwards-compatibility issues the GLEP deals with,
we could just sneak the implementation into EAPI4 and be done with it.

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0033.html

Attachment:
signature.asc (OpenPGP digital signature)
Replies:
Re: RFC: Reviving GLEP33
-- Ciaran McCreesh
Re: RFC: Reviving GLEP33
-- Mike Frysinger
Re: RFC: Reviving GLEP33
-- Brian Harring
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2010-08-01 23h59 UTC
Next by thread:
Re: RFC: Reviving GLEP33
Previous by date:
Automated Package Removal and Addition Tracker, for the week ending 2010-08-01 23h59 UTC
Next by date:
Re: RFC: Reviving GLEP33


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.