| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 19:14 Tue 13 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:02:28PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On 17:56 Tue 13 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > useful enough for EAPI ? or should i just stick it into eutils.eclass |
| 6 |
> > > > ? OR BOTH !? |
| 7 |
> > > |
| 8 |
> > > I prefer to avoid EAPI whenever possible, as it just makes things slower |
| 9 |
> > > and more complex. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Exactly the wrong approach; it winds up with master |
| 12 |
> > repositories/overlays cloning the functionality all over the damn |
| 13 |
> > place. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Why are people cloning anything if it's in eutils.eclass in gentoo-x86? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
There are more repositories than just gentoo-x86, and overlay is *not* |
| 18 |
the only configuration in use. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
In the old days of the PM only handling a single overlay stack, what |
| 21 |
you're suggesting would be less heinous- heinous in detail, but |
| 22 |
pragmatic in reality. These days it's a regressive approach- |
| 23 |
requiring everyone to slave gentoo-x86 isn't sane, nor is avoiding |
| 24 |
eapi (resulting in people having to duplicate code into each |
| 25 |
repository stack). |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
~harring |
Archives