| 1 |
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 8:08 AM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Sonntag, 7. April 2013, 04:05:11 schrieb Ryan Hill: |
| 3 |
>> Toolchain packages, for better or worse, are built by eclass. We are not |
| 4 |
>> forward-porting toolchain.eclass every time someone decides there are too |
| 5 |
>> many EAPIs in the tree. Every change to that eclass breaks something (the |
| 6 |
>> trick is to break things people don't care about any more and hope no one |
| 7 |
>> notices). |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> I'm sorry, but this comes over roughly like follows: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> "We're the only ones doing really complex stuff in the tree, you know, |
| 12 |
> eclasses! Can't really be bothered to clean up the code, especially not for |
| 13 |
> such pointless things as improvements in package manager handling. Our code is |
| 14 |
> highly complex and really fragile, so every small change breaks things. We're |
| 15 |
> trying to hide this as well as we can, thank you for not noticing." |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Well, they are volunteers. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If somebody wants to clean up the eclasses nobody can stop them from |
| 20 |
doing so. Just do it in an overlay and once it is working and tested |
| 21 |
it can be moved over. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Is the toolchain being EAPI0 actually hurting anything? If it is, |
| 24 |
then that should be motivation for those being hurt to step up and |
| 25 |
help fix the parts that are hurting them. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Personally I'd rather see the toolchain be EAPI0 than maintainer-needed. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives