| 1 |
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 2 |
> OK. I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and |
| 3 |
> I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their |
| 4 |
> own eclass. This will resolve some issues with things in system, or |
| 5 |
> otherwise early on, requiring shadow on Linux to get useradd. Two |
| 6 |
> examples of this are bug #113298 and bug #94745. By putting them in |
| 7 |
> their own eclass, we can keep from adding shadow to DEPEND in eutils, |
| 8 |
> while still putting the dependency in the eclass that uses it. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
You do this, and you'll break binpkgs that rely on it existing in |
| 11 |
eutils. Yes it's annoying, but you _have_ to lead the functionality |
| 12 |
in eutils, duplicating it into whatever class you shove it into. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That's the other side of the "can't remove eclasses" rule- can't yank |
| 15 |
functionality that is going to break installed ebuilds and binpkgs. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I'd be willing to make all the changes to the tree to facilitate this, |
| 18 |
> and unless someone has a really good reason not to do so, I think I'll |
| 19 |
> probably do it after the Thanksgiving holiday. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I'd delay this a bit personally, since it's a widespread change, and |
| 22 |
because people are probably going to be offline due to holiday cruft. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yah... you probably have the time to do it during the holiday stuff, |
| 25 |
but again, affecting a sizable collection of packages and requires |
| 26 |
ebuild devs to change the eclasses they're using. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Plus the binpkg issue from above. ;) |
| 29 |
~harring |
Archives