Re: [gentoo-dev] enewuser/enewgroup getting their own eclass

[Brian Harring <ferringb@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1503 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 01:15:52PM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> OK.  I've been looking at some of these issues we've been having, and
> I've been thinking of moving enewuser, egetent, and enewgroup to their
> own eclass.  This will resolve some issues with things in system, or
> otherwise early on, requiring shadow on Linux to get useradd.  Two
> examples of this are bug #113298 and bug #94745. By putting them in
> their own eclass, we can keep from adding shadow to DEPEND in eutils,
> while still putting the dependency in the eclass that uses it.

You do this, and you'll break binpkgs that rely on it existing in 
eutils.  Yes it's annoying, but you _have_ to lead the functionality 
in eutils, duplicating it into whatever class you shove it into.

That's the other side of the "can't remove eclasses" rule- can't yank 
functionality that is going to break installed ebuilds and binpkgs.

> I'd be willing to make all the changes to the tree to facilitate this,
> and unless someone has a really good reason not to do so, I think I'll
> probably do it after the Thanksgiving holiday.

I'd delay this a bit personally, since it's a widespread change, and 
because people are probably going to be offline due to holiday cruft.

Yah... you probably have the time to do it during the holiday stuff, 
but again, affecting a sizable collection of packages and requires 
ebuild devs to change the eclasses they're using.

Plus the binpkg issue from above. ;)
~harring

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]