From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=DMARC_MISSING, MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from io.adm.prosalg.no (janus.prosalg.no [213.236.139.1]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AADA25836 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 05:40:38 -0600 (CST) Received: from karltk by io.adm.prosalg.no with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16OdKB-0000CP-00 for ; Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:24:47 +0100 Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:24:47 +0100 From: Karl Trygve Kalleberg To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Secure Gentoo - What do you think? Message-ID: <20020110112447.GB610@prosalg.no> References: <20020107171359.45792cdb.styx@SuxOS.org> <1010487111.773.2.camel@fluffy> <20020108142742.38c480cb.styx@SuxOS.org> <20020108155438.CD6BD255AF@chiba.3jane.net> <1010505612.18126.9.camel@fluffy> <20020108171039.5545B255A8@chiba.3jane.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020108171039.5545B255A8@chiba.3jane.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Developer discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 339e690c-f541-4f9e-8a74-f1e22c46d6c4 X-Archives-Hash: b56d0f35e3c73b0ce255e82f056da338 On Tue, Jan 08, 2002 at 11:10:39AM -0600, Damon M. Conway wrote: > Mikael Hallendal wrote: > >tis 2002-01-08 klockan 16.54 skrev Damon M. Conway: > > > >> I think this is where eclasses could really help. Eclasses should allow > >> you to create a meta ebuild that looks for certain make.conf vars set and > >> react accordingly. danarmak and drobbins are the ones to ask for more > >> details on eclasses. > > > >For now eclasses should _only_ be used in KDE. A decission still has to > >be made about eclasses. And both me and drobbins have some objections to > >eclasses. > > Hmm, ok. I thought they were on their way to finalization. > > >For one I think that eclasses break one of ebuilds most important > >strength. The ease of use, that they are almost identical to installing > >a package manually. > > Depends on usage. I think eclasses could be quite powerful for > cross-platform capabilities and system types (SuxOS, Web Server, etc), and > they, in theory, can pick up the global configuation baton where make.conf > leaves off. As long as they are well-defined, I don't see how they really > cause any problems, or make ebuilds any harder to write. >>From what I have understood, eclasses is primarily about bringing a few of the OOP principles to bash scripts. As a computer-linguist, I find this attempt misguided at best, but as a system administrator/bash script hacker, I find the idea appealing. Since eclasses are associated with a learning curve, would it not be preferrable to recast the whole inheritance thing in a proper object-oriented language and rather build a support framework for it there ? For instance, use scsh (okay, okay, so Scheme might not be popular with the crowd) or Python. If you take a look at SCons, you'll see Make recast into Python, with all the benefits that gives you (stable, clean, well-known language, lots of documentation, lots of support libraries, cross-platform runtime). Just stirring things up since the eclasses debate seems to be coming regardless. Karl T