| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 19:19:16 +0200 |
| 3 |
> Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> On 09/02/2016 07:17 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 6 |
>> > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Alexis Ballier |
| 7 |
>> > <aballier@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
>> >> On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 18:13:20 +0200 |
| 9 |
>> >> Kristian Fiskerstrand <k_f@g.o> wrote: |
| 10 |
>> >> |
| 11 |
>> >>> Hi Devs, |
| 12 |
>> >>> |
| 13 |
>> >>> I'm wondering whether it wouldn't make sense to require eclasses |
| 14 |
>> >>> (or strongly encourage) to include an explicit list of EAPIs it |
| 15 |
>> >>> has been tested for in order to ease testing when introducing new |
| 16 |
>> >>> EAPIs. |
| 17 |
>> >>> |
| 18 |
>> >>> We have seen some issues already with EAPI6 bump related to |
| 19 |
>> >>> get_libdir and people updating EAPI in ebuild without properly |
| 20 |
>> >>> testing the inherited eclasses. having a whitelist in place and |
| 21 |
>> >>> die if eclass is not updated to handle it solves it. |
| 22 |
>> >>> |
| 23 |
>> >>> Thoughts? comments? cookies? threats? |
| 24 |
>> >>> |
| 25 |
>> >> |
| 26 |
>> >> Never liked to wait for a whole eclass update for a new eapi when I |
| 27 |
>> >> only use a couple functions from it that I have tested when |
| 28 |
>> >> updating an ebuild. |
| 29 |
>> >> |
| 30 |
>> > |
| 31 |
>> > I think the idea is a sound one though. And there is no reason it |
| 32 |
>> > couldn't be tweaked to give the option to set it at the function |
| 33 |
>> > level and not the eclass level. This is also an argument for |
| 34 |
>> > simplifying eclasses when it makes sense (I realize this will never |
| 35 |
>> > be 100%). |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
>> If specific functions can be useful there is also a case to be made |
| 38 |
>> for refactoring of the code |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Well, let's say we have an eapi that introduces usedeps and |
| 43 |
> src_configure. Let's say we have an ebuild with a few built_with_use || |
| 44 |
> die calls that could benefit from usedeps. Let's call this ebuild vlc. |
| 45 |
> Let's say this ebuild inherits an eclass for updating the icon cache |
| 46 |
> and redefines all other ebuild phases. Let's call this eclass gnome2. |
| 47 |
> Let's assume this eclass is widely used by tens of packages that do |
| 48 |
> actually use the exported functions from it. It makes a lot of sense to |
| 49 |
> ban this new eapi in this eclass until it is ported. However, porting |
| 50 |
> it takes months and we are stick with those built_with_use || die calls. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> Of course, the best solution is to port the eclass. The second |
| 53 |
> option is to drop the inherit from the ebuild and call the relevant |
| 54 |
> functions by defining ebuild phases. This duplicates a bit of code but |
| 55 |
> works well. However, it seems to me it is more practical to have an |
| 56 |
> eclass not dying and letting ebuild writers deal with their crap if |
| 57 |
> something goes wrong. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
|
| 60 |
I think this is a good argument for keeping utility functions and |
| 61 |
phase functions in separate eclasses, regardless of EAPI gating. |
Archives