Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Eclass vs EAPI For Utility Functions (Patching/etc)
Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:14:28
Message-Id: 20140615131412.18cdfc26@googlemail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Eclass vs EAPI For Utility Functions (Patching/etc) by Rich Freeman
1 On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:00:15 -0400
2 Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
3 > The Eclass argument goes like this:
4 > Eclasses already work in every PM. Half of what we're debating is
5 > already in eutils. Why move this code into the PM, where it has to be
6 > re-implemented everywhere? If anything we should be moving more PM
7 > functionality out and into eclasses where we can have competing
8 > implementations and more flexibility.
9
10 The big problem with eclasses is that they're far too messy and
11 complicated. Sure, you can *technically* express (say) ABI dependencies
12 using a complicated eclass which translates them into a convoluted
13 series of use dependencies, nested || dependencies etc (more or less
14 correctly most of the time). But the package mangler is being given less
15 information that way, which means it has to have all sorts of dodgy
16 heuristics to deal with them, and can't give good error messages when
17 it breaks.
18
19 --
20 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

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