1 |
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:32:43 -0400 |
2 |
Brian Evans <grknight@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> I object to this as I feel they can incorrect such as on prefix. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> Also, this goes against the established practice of committing directly |
7 |
> to stable. These are exactly the same as virtuals as "they install |
8 |
> nothing" and "just run a script" (to verify dependencies). |
9 |
|
10 |
I'll have to disagree: Installing/Upgrading virtuals can have radical |
11 |
impacts on your system via the dependency graph. |
12 |
|
13 |
Stabilizing a virtual before all its dependencies get stabilized will |
14 |
create hell. |
15 |
|
16 |
Virtuals can also impose USE flags onto other package via the |
17 |
dependency graph, and all hosts of similar things. |
18 |
|
19 |
If you wanted an equivalence, you'd need a virtual without |
20 |
dependencies, which would be a useless virtual. |
21 |
|
22 |
I think its better to think of the ebuilds in acct/ as more an obtusely |
23 |
defined text config-file, for which, the interpretation of that text |
24 |
file is defined by a shared blob of code, the eclass. |
25 |
|
26 |
The stability of the mechanics of interpreting those text files is what |
27 |
is in consideration here, not the text files themselves. |
28 |
|
29 |
And that mechanism is the eclass. |
30 |
|
31 |
By comparison, you could easily implement an alternative system, where |
32 |
nodes in acct/ were not .ebuilds, but, just literal text files instead |
33 |
of bash, with no provisions for keywords at all, and the interpretation |
34 |
of said files would be up to the package manager. |
35 |
|
36 |
Not only shouldn't you try to do keywording in such a situation, you |
37 |
_couldnt_ |
38 |
|
39 |
That said, I do think making this stipulation may be premature, but its |
40 |
something that I can't imagine we'll know for sure is wise until we've |
41 |
been employing this strategy for a good time, and we won't know we'll |
42 |
need the capacity until the first usecase where its needed arises. |