| 1 |
On Wed, 2 Dec 2015 13:04:19 +0100 |
| 2 |
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >>>>> On Wed, 2 Dec 2015, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> > What's the point, need or advantage in moving this to |
| 7 |
> > all-ebuild-scope? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> > Usually eclass refactor/api cleanup are done in a -r{n+1} while |
| 10 |
> > deprecating -rn. This would have the advantage that you can quickly |
| 11 |
> > post a complete implementation and get wider reviews. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> A proof-of-concept implementation for the two version manipulation |
| 14 |
> functions is here: |
| 15 |
> https://482170.bugs.gentoo.org/attachment.cgi?id=418072 |
| 16 |
> Add some comments and you'll have a working eclass. :) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Yes, but I don't see the point of defining bash code in PMS and |
| 19 |
copy/pasting it in every compliant PM, when said code used to be in |
| 20 |
only one place. Sounds like a "regression" to me. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
[...] |
| 24 |
> Also version_test is missing, but the idea there was to avoid |
| 25 |
> redundancy and use the implementation that already exists in the |
| 26 |
> package manager (which does version comparison all the time). This is |
| 27 |
> one of the reasons for moving it to the package manager. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
well, then maybe version_test is the only one that makes sense to be |
| 31 |
added to PM. Though it is unclear to me how to interface it: spawning a |
| 32 |
python interp. every time the function is called doesn't seem to be a |
| 33 |
terrible idea wrt performance. |
Archives