| 1 |
On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:02:44 +0200 |
| 2 |
"vivo75@×××××.com" <vivo75@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Actually putting everithing in an eclass could make maintenaince |
| 5 |
> easyer and faster while providing history of changes. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
That's not necessarily true, this entirely depends on how the eclass is |
| 8 |
implemented and what you are putting into it. This also takes into |
| 9 |
account not having one eclass to rule em all or an eclass that covers |
| 10 |
just two lines, there's a right amount to it; in this case, the eclass |
| 11 |
just doesn't work out the way you'd want to. It breaks because of that. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> My example being mysql (and forks) which use mysql*.eclass. |
| 14 |
> Stability for the mysql packages has been good, while maintaining |
| 15 |
> _multiple_ versions of them actually useable. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Disclaimer: |
| 18 |
> The actual mantainers opinion may be even the opposite of this one, |
| 19 |
> and mine may very well be biased, since I'm the one who moved the |
| 20 |
> ebuild in the eclasses few years ago. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Some eclasses being usable doesn't mean that all eclasses are usable. |
| 23 |
This thread isn't about moving code to an eclass, it's rather about the |
| 24 |
eclass itself being poorly designed and the ways people want to deal |
| 25 |
(or not deal) with it; this in itself is a sub discussion of whether to |
| 26 |
plan to get rid of EAPI 0 next council meeting. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
With kind regards, |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Tom Wijsman (TomWij) |
| 32 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
E-mail address : TomWij@g.o |
| 35 |
GPG Public Key : 6D34E57D |
| 36 |
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2 ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D |
Archives