| 1 |
On 23:20 Mon 08 Apr , Ryan Hill wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hrm. I just meant that package eclasses suck. I hate the fact that they |
| 3 |
> effectively make stable moot. There is no such thing as a stable keyword for a |
| 4 |
> package built by an eclass. It's like working without a net. When it's a core |
| 5 |
> system package it's twice as bad. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> As far as these eclasses go, toolchain is the worst. Yes, it is fragile |
| 8 |
> and complex. It's over a decade's worth of spaghetti code. It builds 12 years |
| 9 |
> of gcc releases. It's hairy. Everything depends on everything else, and |
| 10 |
> everything is based on assumptions and implications that may or may not still |
| 11 |
> be relevant. Making "obviously" correct changes has often broken something |
| 12 |
> somewhere else, time and again. I'm not telling you this for some kind of |
| 13 |
> perverse bragging rights. It's not something to be proud of. I just want you |
| 14 |
> to understand how easy it is to fuck things up. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> When it breaks, it breaks stable. I absolutely hate breaking stable. I lose |
| 17 |
> sleep over it. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You could probably deal with this through much more aggressive bumping |
| 20 |
of eclass versions in concert with ebuild bumps, followed by eclass |
| 21 |
freezes once their users go stable. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Thanks, |
| 25 |
Donnie |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Donnie Berkholz |
| 28 |
Council Member / Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux <http://dberkholz.com> |
| 29 |
Analyst, RedMonk <http://redmonk.com/dberkholz/> |
Archives