| 1 |
Hi all: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 07:00:15AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> During the council meeting there was a bit of a philosophical debate |
| 5 |
> over the proper role of EAPI vs implementing functions in eclasses. I |
| 6 |
> felt that it was important enough to at least get more community input |
| 7 |
> before we continue voting on features like user patching/etc which |
| 8 |
> tend to favor an EAPI-based approach. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I am strongly in favor of the eapi-based approach as well, for all of |
| 11 |
the reasons mentioned in the thread so far. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Eclasses can and should be used for functions, imo, that are used by |
| 14 |
some ebuilds, but once it is determined that functionality in an eclass has |
| 15 |
potential for very wide use, that functionality should be moved into an |
| 16 |
eapi. The eutils functions are a prime example of this. These are |
| 17 |
general purpose functions, so there is no reason for them to be kept in |
| 18 |
an eclass. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
William |
Archives