Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o>
To: Michael 'veremitz' Everitt <gentoo@×××××××.xyz>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o, Marek Szuba <marecki@g.o>, graaff@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [PATCH] lua.eclass: initial implementation
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 2020 18:24:26
Message-Id: 20200904062410.3a743605@katipo2.lan
1 On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 14:49:25 +0100
2 Michael 'veremitz' Everitt <gentoo@×××××××.xyz> wrote:
4 > I know this is a much more onerous "solution" but I thought I would throw
5 > it out there, and see if any other interested parties (eg. kent\n and
6 > potentially graaff) may be able to share their thoughts..
8 Actually, the more I think about it, there are 2 major reasons not to do this:
10 1. Its a premature abstraction that centralises a point of failure, and
11 so any defects in this POF scale to all places, producing even more
12 places where changing one eclass requires regenerating the md5 cache
13 for the whole tree, and makes it *harder* to specify logic that only
14 occurs in one languages ecosystem.
16 2. What happens if two eclasses inherit this shared eclass, and
17 declares "which variables do I look into" via other variables that
18 define its API?, and then, one ebuild consumes *both*.
20 Presently, inheriting two eclasses, one for python, one for lua, and
21 taping together how they build inside the ebuild itself seems viable.
23 But if the logic is shoehorned into a common eclass, that will likely
24 go really fucking pear shaped, unless done with a very fucked
25 up/complicated API.
27 I don't think this is worth it.