| 1 |
On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:05 AM, Anthony G. Basile |
| 2 |
<basile@××××××××××××××.edu> wrote: |
| 3 |
> 0) This reduces code reusability. The eclass is used by sys-devel/kgcc64 in |
| 4 |
> the tree and (at least) the hardened-dev::musl overlay outside. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Yes, but while your claim that it reduces reusability is true, I think |
| 7 |
that's potentially a good thing. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
With all of the logic encoded in that huge eclass, any modifications |
| 10 |
to it change the code any version of the gcc ebuild executes, |
| 11 |
including stable versions that you're not thinking about at the time. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
eclasses are pretty great for sharing code akin to a library, but when |
| 14 |
*all* of your ebuild's logic is in the eclass, well, that's not really |
| 15 |
the intended use case as far as I can tell. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
glibc does the same thing with "eblits." |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I think I remember Ciaran making the same argument in the past, but |
| 20 |
much better said than mine. |
Archives