| 1 |
17.08.2014 01:54, William Hubbs пишет: |
| 2 |
> All, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> there is an ongoing discussion about how we handle eclass phase |
| 5 |
> functions by default [1]. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Currently, EXPORT_FUNCTIONS is called in eclasses, and because of the |
| 8 |
> way this works, the phase function that is exported last in the chain of |
| 9 |
> inherited eclasses is the one that is called for a given phase, |
| 10 |
> overriding the PMS default phase function. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The initial proposal is to change this behaviour so that the PMS default |
| 13 |
> phase functions call all matching phase functions from inherited |
| 14 |
> eclasses in sequence. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> For example: |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> - your ebuild inherits foo and bar and each of them have src_unpack |
| 19 |
> functions. With this new behaviour, the default src_unpack would run |
| 20 |
> foo_src_unpack, bar_src_unpack, then perform its own actions. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I strongly oppose this change, because I feel it will make our |
| 23 |
> entire tree very unpredictable at best. I realize this might eliminate |
| 24 |
> boilerplating from our tree. Weighing that against the possible |
| 25 |
> ramifications in this big of a change in automagic behaviour, I think |
| 26 |
> the cost is much higher than the gain. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> I am also not very comfortable with our current state, because it has |
| 29 |
> a lot of uncertainty in terms of how the eclass phase functions are |
| 30 |
> called. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> My counter proposal to this is that we stop calling eclass phase |
| 33 |
> functions automatically, and to minimize the amount of boilerplating |
| 34 |
> we would have to do, we use a variable, such as ECLASS_PHASES which |
| 35 |
> would be defined at the ebuild level and contain a list of the eclass |
| 36 |
> phase functions we want to run automatically. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Going back to my previous example, say your ebuild does the following: |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> -- code begins here -- |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> inherit foo bar |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> # Foo and bar both have src_unpack and src_install functions. |
| 45 |
> # we want foo's src_unpack and bar's src_install: |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> ECLASS_PHASES="foo_src_unpack |
| 48 |
> bar_src_install" |
| 49 |
> |
| 50 |
> -- code ends here --- |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> If ECLASS_PHASES is undefined, I think the default should be to not run |
| 53 |
> the eclass phase functions. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Yes, this means there is some boilerplating. However, there are some |
| 56 |
> strong advantages: |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
> - this is no longer dependent on order of inheritance. |
| 59 |
> - The ebuild author knows exactly which eclass phase functions will |
| 60 |
> be run. |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> Thoughts? |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> William |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bugs.cgi?id=516014 |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
You have my strong opposition on such change as well. It will turn |
| 70 |
ebuilds into unreadable and undpredictable mess, please do not do that |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
-- |
| 73 |
Best regards, Sergey Popov |
| 74 |
Gentoo developer |
| 75 |
Gentoo Desktop Effects project lead |
| 76 |
Gentoo Proxy maintainers project lead |
Archives