1 |
>>>>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2014, Rich Freeman wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I am still a bit uneasy, but I definitely agree that if we do this I'd |
4 |
> much rather see a series of versioned eclasses than an eclass whose |
5 |
> functionality changes in place over time. |
6 |
|
7 |
> Ulm's point still exists that technically EAPI6 isn't actually |
8 |
> approved yet, in part because the agreement was that nothing gets |
9 |
> approved for good without a reference implementation in portage. So, |
10 |
> there is some risk that it could change, which might mean that ebuilds |
11 |
> that use future.eclass would need more work when moving them to an |
12 |
> EAPI that no longer contains the function they call. |
13 |
|
14 |
> That said, the whole point of the council vote was to avoid having the |
15 |
> PM teams spending time on features that were going to get voted out at |
16 |
> the last minute. Assuming that all goes as planned the actual PMS |
17 |
> vote should be a formality, but you know how plans go... :) |
18 |
|
19 |
I had thought that the lesson from premature implementation of the |
20 |
einstalldocs function in an eclass had been learned. There we have the |
21 |
problem that the eclass function is incompatible with what will be |
22 |
implemented in the package manager. Now we will have a third |
23 |
implementation of einstalldocs, along with a third implementation of |
24 |
the patch applying function. (The whole point of eapply is that it |
25 |
will be implemented in the PM; in eclasses we already have epatch |
26 |
which is more sophisticated.) |
27 |
|
28 |
Also I still don't see what problem future.eclass would solve. It |
29 |
doesn't save the EAPI bump, so the maintainer will have to update the |
30 |
ebuild twice, users will have to rebuild the package twice, and arch |
31 |
teams will have to stabilise twice. |
32 |
|
33 |
Besides, an eclass like this would also undermine the council's and QA |
34 |
team's efforts to keep the number of EAPIs in tree limited. |
35 |
|
36 |
Ulrich |