1 |
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 22:19:16 +0100 |
2 |
Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On pon, 2017-03-20 at 22:12 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
5 |
> > On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 19:24:58 +0100 |
6 |
> > Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > > On pon, 2017-03-20 at 18:01 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
9 |
> > > > What makes me wonder more are the proposed solutions: So far the |
10 |
> > > > only proposals I've seen are either inlining *all* the code or |
11 |
> > > > moving *all* the code into an eclass. Having a quick look at |
12 |
> > > > autoconf, it seems to me an intermediate solution would work |
13 |
> > > > perfectly fine for the above goals/rules: Put main.eblit into an |
14 |
> > > > eclass. The loading code then would access $FILESDIR only in |
15 |
> > > > src_* phases. This would likely work better for all parties and |
16 |
> > > > would allow to focus on better specifying this gray area of PMS |
17 |
> > > > instead. |
18 |
> > > |
19 |
> > > Don't you find it a bad hypocritical that at the same time you |
20 |
> > > oppose committing an eclass for a single package and you support |
21 |
> > > committing an eclass to support half-working hack for a single |
22 |
> > > package? |
23 |
> > |
24 |
> > First, I don't oppose committing an eclass for a single package, I |
25 |
> > consider it out of scope of eclasses, that's all. |
26 |
> > |
27 |
> > But even if I had stronger positions, this one looks like a win-win |
28 |
> > situation to me: From a code reuse POV, it is an aberration to have |
29 |
> > packages reinvent eblit include logic, each of them having or having |
30 |
> > had its different flaws. Still from a code reuse POV, the eclass |
31 |
> > being able to export functions would reduce ebuild boilerplate |
32 |
> > code, an eblit eclass could test the presence of eblit code and |
33 |
> > call default if absent. From a QA POV, eblit functions can die |
34 |
> > horribly if called outside of src_* phases, ensuring PMS |
35 |
> > assumptions hold and making everyone happy. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> From a code reuse POV, it is an aberration to have an eclass that |
38 |
> reinvents eclass include logic, having or having had flaws. Still from |
39 |
> a code reuse POV, the package manager being able to export functions |
40 |
> would reduce eclass boilterplate code, a package manager could look |
41 |
> for EXPORT_FUNCTIONS and call default if absent. From a QA POV, |
42 |
> eclass can work properly if called outside of src_* phases, ensuring |
43 |
> PMS assumptions hold and making everyone happy. |
44 |
> |
45 |
> ...oh wait, we already have that! |
46 |
|
47 |
Since you still seem to fail to understand the difference, there's |
48 |
nothing I can do for you there. Feel free to convince maintainers, get |
49 |
them kicked if you fail to persuade them, or fork gentoo if you can't |
50 |
get them kicked. Nice team work. |