Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Dan Naumov <jago@×××××××××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Very bad ebuild-writing practice.
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 11:44:31
Message-Id: 20020817194846.4204ba76.jago@telefragged.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Very bad ebuild-writing practice. by Jeremiah Mahler
1 On Sat, 17 Aug 2002 09:30:37 -0700
2 Jeremiah Mahler <jmahler@×××××××.net> wrote:
3
4 > But suppose someone did want an ebuild for the hourly CVS snapshots?
5 > How should it be named?
6
7 My personal belief is that ebuilds of hourly CVS snapshots should never leave the PORTDIR_OVERLAY of the original author. IMHO, Gentoo Portage is no place for autogenerated, untested CVS stuff. How are you going to go around non-compiling snapshots of broken trees and new compile options that appear from time to timw anyways ?
8
9 Ebuilds should be writted for things that are "set in stone" and don't go around changing on an hourly basis. You really don't want to have 2 users run "emerge blah" and get different versions of the same program, even though "emerge -u rsync" was run at the same time. This would be a horrible mess (which is currently the case with QuakeForge ebuild).
10
11 Sincerely,
12 Dan Naumov aka Jago

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Very bad ebuild-writing practice. Blake Watters <sbw@×××××××××××.edu>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Very bad ebuild-writing practice. Alexander Gretencord <arutha@×××.de>