1 |
I've found some more info on this topic from the internet archive. |
2 |
|
3 |
- "[gentoo-dev] RFC: eblits.eclass" |
4 |
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=4BC0F659.7000506%40gentoo.org |
5 |
- https://github.com/transtone/zm-overlay/blob/master/eclass/eblits.eclass |
6 |
- https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/GLEP:33 |
7 |
- "RFC: Reviving GLEP33" http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/67451 |
8 |
|
9 |
It seems that "eblits" is a relative to yet another concept called |
10 |
"elibs", which was proposed back in 2005 as GLEP33, but was never |
11 |
completed. As opposed to "elibs", "eblits" do not require any special |
12 |
EAPI or portage support and thus they're living and are tolerated to |
13 |
these days, as they do not interact with anything outside of their |
14 |
lawn. |
15 |
|
16 |
Based on the explanation given by Kent Frederic and Duncan, I'd sum it up as: |
17 |
|
18 |
"a way to share code between ebuilds of a certain package, living |
19 |
concurrently in different slots" |
20 |
|
21 |
Which can be abstracted as "isolated package-specific eclasses". |
22 |
|
23 |
Inter-ebuild code sharing really seems like a problem for maintainers |
24 |
of certain packages and eblits seem to provide a quick solution, so |
25 |
that answers the "why". |
26 |
|
27 |
This whole concept, however, raises the question (as suggested by |
28 |
Ciaran McCreesh and Duncan) if it's allowed to split ebuilds to |
29 |
several bash scripts and what have QA and dev-manual got to say in |
30 |
this regard? |
31 |
|
32 |
It's always better to have some official material rather than an oral tradition. |