| 1 |
On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 5:09 PM, Andreas K. Huettel <dilfridge@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Donnerstag, 6. November 2014, 22:56:21 schrieb Rich Freeman: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> I think we are well-served by taking Ciaran's advice here. Utility |
| 5 |
>> eclasses should just passively export functions. Anything that does |
| 6 |
>> overrides should really be designed for special situations and not |
| 7 |
>> widespread use where it would potentially conflict with other eclasses |
| 8 |
>> that do the same. So, a KDE all-in-one eclass might not be bad. A |
| 9 |
>> perl all-in-one eclass would be more troublesome, |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Bad example. :) We have ca 1800 packages in the portage tree inheriting perl- |
| 12 |
> module.eclass and most of them do not declare any phases themselves but just |
| 13 |
> inherit eclass phases. Which works fine and reduces most ebuilds to a bare |
| 14 |
> minimum. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
I don't see perl MODULES as being a bad use of this, but an all-in-one |
| 17 |
eclass that was intended for packages that were written (partially or |
| 18 |
totally) in perl would not be a good thing IMO. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The problem comes when you get into situations where the perl gurus |
| 21 |
wanted a fancy eclass, and the python maintainers wanted a fancy |
| 22 |
eclass, and the games maintainers wanted a fancy eclass, and your |
| 23 |
package is a game that includes some files written in python and perl. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
When you have a bunch of packages that tend to come from the same |
| 26 |
upstream with the same development/release/packaging practices then |
| 27 |
sure, an all-in-one can make the ebuilds a lot cleaner. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I think we're on the same page in any case. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Rich |
Archives