Re: [gentoo-dev] Very bad ebuild-writing practice.

[Troy Dack]

On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 01:44, Alexander Gretencord wrote:
> Dan Naumov wrote:
> >>But suppose someone did want an ebuild for the hourly CVS snapshots?
> >>How should it be named?
> >
> > 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 ?
>
> Well I think we do need such ebuilds _but_ they gotta be named
> accordingly. You have to see that it is a cvs ebuild. I for one use
> mplayer as my multimedia player of choice but I won't use the ebuild
> because mplayer releases don't come too often. For a very long time
> there was just the 0.60 release of mplayer which sucked, while cvs
> always builds (just personal exp tho) and has tons of features. I have
> not bothered to look at the cvs eclass and build my mplayer myself but
> mplayer is such an example where a cvs ebuild would be great. Another
> example is is kde. Why not use the convenience of portage to test the
> latest kde.
>
> Alex

Have a look at Dan's kde-cvs ebuilds @
http://www.gentoo.org/~danarmak/kde-cvs.html

I've been using them for the last couple of months with no major
problems.  I don't think it would be too difficult to adapt them for
mplayer or any other application.

I think that using cvs eclass based ebuilds instead of a snapshot tar
ball is preferably, at least the end user is clear on the type of code
that they are going to be receiving and attempting to compile.

-- 
	Troy Dack
	http://linuxserver.tkdack.com		http://gentoo.tkdack.com