| 1 |
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:50:17 +0300 |
| 2 |
Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> В Вск, 30/11/2008 в 16:10 +0100, Santiago M. Mola пишет: |
| 4 |
> > per-package eclasses [1]. |
| 5 |
> > That way, it would be easy to avoid duplication of not only |
| 6 |
> > HOMEPAGE but also SRC_URI, LICENSE, or any other part of an ebuild. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Having per-package eclasses (PPE) just to set common HOMEPAGE is |
| 9 |
> definitely overkill. What other reasons for PPE to exist? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
In an awful lot of cases, there's a very high degree of code overlap |
| 12 |
between ebuild versions. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> If you want to separate common code, then PPE is very dangerous. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Take for example ebuilds which share same src_*() function which you |
| 17 |
> had to modify a bit with version bump. To be absolutely sure that you |
| 18 |
> have not broke anything you'll have to check all versions of the |
| 19 |
> package or there are chances that you broke stable tree and have not |
| 20 |
> noticed that. Of course the same stands for eclasses. The difference |
| 21 |
> between PPE and global eclasses is that 1. PPE covers less packages |
| 22 |
> and it'll take longer to notice that error 2. per-package things are |
| 23 |
> changing more rapidly and thus more changes to PPE will be required. |
| 24 |
> All this means that we'll have more breakages. So what are the |
| 25 |
> benefits to overbalance this minuses? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
You appear to be assuming that Gentoo developers are careless and |
| 28 |
incompetent. The ebuild format already gives developers more than |
| 29 |
enough rope to hang themselves and every single user -- per package |
| 30 |
eclasses don't alter this in any way. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives