| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 29/09/12 10:26 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 5 |
> On 09/29/2012 04:19 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 6 |
>> On 29/09/12 09:49 AM, hasufell wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> On 09/29/2012 12:49 PM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 11:20:31 +0100 Markos Chandras |
| 9 |
>>>> <hwoarang@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
>>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 |
| 12 |
>>>>> |
| 13 |
>>>>> On 09/29/2012 09:53 AM, Micha? Górny wrote: |
| 14 |
>>>>>> Hello, |
| 15 |
>>>>>> |
| 16 |
>>>>>> Instead of the floating patches and p-d-ng modifications |
| 17 |
>>>>>> I sent earlier, here are the two complete (so far, well, |
| 18 |
>>>>>> initial :P) eclasses for review. |
| 19 |
>>>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>>>> They are designed as 'mostly' drop-in python-distutils-ng |
| 21 |
>>>>>> replacement. |
| 22 |
>>>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>>> Hi, |
| 24 |
>>>>> |
| 25 |
>>>>> Are you saying that you are going to remove the |
| 26 |
>>>>> python-distutils-ng eclass in favour of the new eclasses? I |
| 27 |
>>>>> don't quite understand the reasons to be honest. |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>>>> The reason is simple -- I can't fix it without changing the |
| 30 |
>>>> API. Changing the API on a live eclass is confusing, and |
| 31 |
>>>> considering that it is not used by many packages, it's |
| 32 |
>>>> easier to lastrite it. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
>>>> Also, this fixes the name not to have any '-ng' nor '-ds9'. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
>>> What are the reasons to change the API in the first place? |
| 38 |
>>> There has to be a good reason, cause this will involve yet |
| 39 |
>>> another migration of many ebuilds. I don't see any bugreports. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
>>> I fear this will cause more confusion, i.e. some ebuilds using |
| 42 |
>>> the old distutils, some using python-distutils-ng and some |
| 43 |
>>> using distutils-r1 resulting in weird tree behavior. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
>> Given that at present, distutils-r1 and python-distutils-ng have |
| 47 |
>> identical end-results, I think that the introduction of |
| 48 |
>> distutils-r1 to the tree should also involve a sed against all |
| 49 |
>> the existing ebuilds using python-distutils-ng to move them to |
| 50 |
>> the new eclass. Then python-distutils-ng only needs to remain to |
| 51 |
>> support overlays. |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> That still does not explain the reasons why this work was |
| 56 |
> initiated. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> If there is any way to fix the current eclass, that should be |
| 59 |
> preferred. |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
There isn't so much a problem with the current python-distutils-ng |
| 63 |
eclass but rather it's to expand it to a more comprehensive |
| 64 |
replacement for both distutils and python eclasses. In order to do |
| 65 |
that efficiently, most of the core functionality should be moved so |
| 66 |
that the new distutils is more like a wrapper to the new python. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
This could certainly be done by patching the existing eclass, but |
| 69 |
mgorny wants to use new eclass names instead of keeping the current |
| 70 |
one. Hence the rename. I think that's about it.. |
| 71 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 72 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlBnFbcACgkQ2ugaI38ACPAirwD/SqHvaJfc73pYzxSoow0ORPJY |
| 75 |
mSe1aS9kNk7SGT4ey1EA/jLPc1+of8Rwh3BFxeGfk0H1Go4mr/AbqhLDPnkxO2Sn |
| 76 |
=QUTg |
| 77 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives