Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Steev Klimaszewski <steev@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 03:31:13
Message-Id: m2j6d2ed5bd1004162030mabb8134sf19feac0afeb04ad@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass by Ciaran McCreesh
1 On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
2 <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> wrote:
3 > On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0400
4 > James Cloos <cloos@×××××××.com> wrote:
5 >> OK.  Let me rephrase.  Portage does not need to validate local
6 >> changes.
7 >
8 > Sure it does. If it doesn't, and your local changes affect metadata,
9 > horrible things happen.
10
11 Why not check the mtime on the overlay, if it is older than last sync
12 time, not invalid.
13
14 >> If a user uses a local eclass to override one in portage or in some
15 >> remote overlay s/he follows, it is his/er responsibility to update
16 >> it when the original undergoes major renovation.
17 >
18 > Users aren't responsible...
19
20 And doing everything we can to make them not be isn't going to teach
21 them anything.
22
23 > --
24 > Ciaran McCreesh
25 >
26
27 Steev

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>