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