Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: William Hubbs <williamh@g.o>
To: gentoo development <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Cc: mgorny@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] rfc: eclass issues
Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:39:04
Message-Id: 20140817153854.GA22840@linux1
1 All,
3 I spoke with mgorny on IRC and found out what his concerns are about our
4 current eclasses.
6 First, he thinks we should get rid of base.eclass.
8 I know there is work going on to get rid of it, but I haven't really
9 looked into the status much yet. I do agree though, we shouldn't have a
10 general-purpose eclass like this that overrides default phase functions.
11 Things like this belong in PMS; not in an eclass.
13 The other concern he mentioned was indirectly inherited eclasses being
14 able to override phase functions.
16 He said for example that if an ebuild inherits foo and foo inherits bar,
17 foo should export all of the phase functions bar exports.
19 This may cause some boilerplating in some of the eclasses, so I'm
20 wondering if it would be feasible to make EXPORT_FUNCTIONS work only for
21 the first level of inheritance?
23 Thoughts?
25 William


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: eclass issues Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: eclass issues hasufell <hasufell@g.o>