* [gentoo-dev] Reinstating eclasses @ 2008-11-04 16:43 Christoph Mende 2008-11-04 17:35 ` Zac Medico 2008-11-04 18:43 ` Joe Peterson 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Christoph Mende @ 2008-11-04 16:43 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 884 bytes --] Hi, I'm currently working on a new eclass for Xfce4 that, as opposed to the previous ones (xfce42.eclass, xfce44.eclass), is supposed to be used for all versions. Now the most logical name for an eclass like that would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists. It seems like it was used for Xfce 4.2 and has been deprecated for quite some time now. Obviously, packages using that eclass (which is zero in the main tree and zero in the xfce herd's overlay btw) wouldn't work with my new eclass, so I can't just extend said eclass. Now my big question is: Do I have to think of a new name for my eclass (was thinking of something like xfce4-r1.eclass, which I don't really like though) or can I just overwrite the old eclass? -- Christoph Mende Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Lead and Release Engineering GPG: EE2A 454A 6A3B A2D8 E43B FF45 2A19 C3B3 6DA0 C1AF [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Reinstating eclasses 2008-11-04 16:43 [gentoo-dev] Reinstating eclasses Christoph Mende @ 2008-11-04 17:35 ` Zac Medico 2008-11-04 18:22 ` Petteri Räty 2008-11-04 18:43 ` Joe Peterson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Zac Medico @ 2008-11-04 17:35 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Christoph Mende wrote: > Hi, > > I'm currently working on a new eclass for Xfce4 that, as opposed to the > previous ones (xfce42.eclass, xfce44.eclass), is supposed to be used > for all versions. Now the most logical name for an eclass like that > would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists. It seems like > it was used for Xfce 4.2 and has been deprecated for quite some time > now. Obviously, packages using that eclass (which is zero in the main > tree and zero in the xfce herd's overlay btw) wouldn't work with my new > eclass, so I can't just extend said eclass. Now my big question is: Do > I have to think of a new name for my eclass (was thinking of something > like xfce4-r1.eclass, which I don't really like though) or can I just > overwrite the old eclass? > Considering that stable portage (2.1.4.4) uses environment.bz2 and doesn't need the eclasses to exist for uninstall or binary packages, and it's exceedingly unlikely that it will hurt anyone, I think you should go ahead and overwrite the old eclass. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkkQh8EACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPvGACdFZMsZTAr6Qi9nyD1/zd24eb6 j00AoKBfHSrXPwUMSsC1WhSwvUVvVgad =aINW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Reinstating eclasses 2008-11-04 17:35 ` Zac Medico @ 2008-11-04 18:22 ` Petteri Räty 2008-11-04 18:30 ` Joe Peterson 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Petteri Räty @ 2008-11-04 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1276 bytes --] Zac Medico wrote: > Christoph Mende wrote: >> Hi, > >> I'm currently working on a new eclass for Xfce4 that, as opposed to the >> previous ones (xfce42.eclass, xfce44.eclass), is supposed to be used >> for all versions. Now the most logical name for an eclass like that >> would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists. It seems like >> it was used for Xfce 4.2 and has been deprecated for quite some time >> now. Obviously, packages using that eclass (which is zero in the main >> tree and zero in the xfce herd's overlay btw) wouldn't work with my new >> eclass, so I can't just extend said eclass. Now my big question is: Do >> I have to think of a new name for my eclass (was thinking of something >> like xfce4-r1.eclass, which I don't really like though) or can I just >> overwrite the old eclass? > > > Considering that stable portage (2.1.4.4) uses environment.bz2 and > doesn't need the eclasses to exist for uninstall or binary packages, > and it's exceedingly unlikely that it will hurt anyone, I think you > should go ahead and overwrite the old eclass. > The names of eclasses aren't shown to users and I think figuring out a new name is a minor inconvenience so I would just go with the safe route. Regards, Petteri [-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Reinstating eclasses 2008-11-04 18:22 ` Petteri Räty @ 2008-11-04 18:30 ` Joe Peterson 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Joe Peterson @ 2008-11-04 18:30 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Petteri Räty wrote: > The names of eclasses aren't shown to users and I think figuring out a > new name is a minor inconvenience so I would just go with the safe route. I disagree: we should use care in choosing names, since these names will be around for a long time. Using an ugly name might not be visible to the users so much, but we, as devs, need to see them, and we might as well be elegant where possible. -Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Reinstating eclasses 2008-11-04 16:43 [gentoo-dev] Reinstating eclasses Christoph Mende 2008-11-04 17:35 ` Zac Medico @ 2008-11-04 18:43 ` Joe Peterson 2008-11-04 19:15 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Joe Peterson @ 2008-11-04 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Christoph Mende wrote: > Now the most logical name for an eclass like that > would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists. Since the new eclass is not version specific, how about simply "xfce.eclass"? -Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: Reinstating eclasses 2008-11-04 18:43 ` Joe Peterson @ 2008-11-04 19:15 ` Ryan Hill 2008-11-04 19:19 ` Joe Peterson 2008-11-04 19:23 ` Christoph Mende 0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Ryan Hill @ 2008-11-04 19:15 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 628 bytes --] On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500 Joe Peterson <lavajoe@gentoo.org> wrote: > Christoph Mende wrote: > > Now the most logical name for an eclass like that > > would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists. > > Since the new eclass is not version specific, how about simply > "xfce.eclass"? why bother introducing yet another xfce*.eclass when you can re-use an existing one? -- gcc-porting, by design, by neglect treecleaner, for a fact or just for effect wxwidgets @ gentoo EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662 [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Reinstating eclasses 2008-11-04 19:15 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill @ 2008-11-04 19:19 ` Joe Peterson 2008-11-04 19:23 ` Christoph Mende 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Joe Peterson @ 2008-11-04 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Ryan Hill wrote: > On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500 > Joe Peterson <lavajoe@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> Christoph Mende wrote: >>> Now the most logical name for an eclass like that >>> would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists. >> Since the new eclass is not version specific, how about simply >> "xfce.eclass"? > > why bother introducing yet another xfce*.eclass when you can re-use an > existing one? Well, my thought (without knowing xfce details, albeit) if the eclass is now not tied to version, having one with no version info in the name might serve future xfce versions (5, 6, 7...) as well without requiring yet another name change. -Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Reinstating eclasses 2008-11-04 19:15 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill 2008-11-04 19:19 ` Joe Peterson @ 2008-11-04 19:23 ` Christoph Mende 2008-11-04 19:30 ` Joe Peterson 1 sibling, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Christoph Mende @ 2008-11-04 19:23 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 996 bytes --] On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:15:25 -0600 Ryan Hill <dirtyepic@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:43:55 -0500 > Joe Peterson <lavajoe@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > Christoph Mende wrote: > > > Now the most logical name for an eclass like that > > > would be xfce4.eclass, except that eclass already exists. > > > > Since the new eclass is not version specific, how about simply > > "xfce.eclass"? Well, the desktop is usually called Xfce4, plus that'd match gnome2... and more or less kde4 > why bother introducing yet another xfce*.eclass when you can re-use an > existing one? > That's what I want to do :P We currently have xfce4.eclass, xfce42.eclass and xfce44.eclass. 42 and 44 are obviously versioned, 4 isn't, but isn't nearly compatible with my new one, partly because it was used (and probably exclusively written) for 4.2. -- Christoph Mende Gentoo/AMD64 Operational Lead and Release Engineering GPG: EE2A 454A 6A3B A2D8 E43B FF45 2A19 C3B3 6DA0 C1AF [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --] ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Reinstating eclasses 2008-11-04 19:23 ` Christoph Mende @ 2008-11-04 19:30 ` Joe Peterson 2008-11-04 23:30 ` Duncan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Joe Peterson @ 2008-11-04 19:30 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Christoph Mende wrote: > Well, the desktop is usually called Xfce4, plus that'd match gnome2... > and more or less kde4 In general, it makes sense to me to have an unversioned one if there is no version dependency - i.e. if xfce.eclass would likely work for future ones (like "xfce5"). I'm not sure why, other than to emphasize that a new version is out, upstream packages (like gnome, kde, etc.) include the version in the name. I actually just think of kde as "kde", myself, even if it happens to be version 4. ;) -Joe ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: Reinstating eclasses 2008-11-04 19:30 ` Joe Peterson @ 2008-11-04 23:30 ` Duncan 2008-11-05 16:19 ` Steve Long 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Duncan @ 2008-11-04 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Joe Peterson <lavajoe@gentoo.org> posted 4910A2C7.3030703@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:30:15 -0500: > In general, it makes sense to me to have an unversioned one if there is > no version dependency - i.e. if xfce.eclass would likely work for future > ones (like "xfce5"). I'm not sure why, other than to emphasize that a > new version is out, upstream packages (like gnome, kde, etc.) include > the version in the name. I actually just think of kde as "kde", myself, > even if it happens to be version 4. ;) FWIW, KDE changes major versions seldom enough and with enough differences between versions, that it's a good time to break package handling and get rid of the cruft at the Gentoo level as well. In the case of KDE4, before anything even close to stable ever hit the tree, the Gentoo/KDE folks took the opportunity to require various EAPI-2 features including sets, thereby removing much of the cruft and maintainability headaches of the kde3 packages and their corresponding eclasses. kde4 eclasses were then the logical choice, since the unversioned kde nameslots were already taken, and if/when there's a kde5, as with kde4, it's likely to be so different it'll be time to once again break with the past and use an entirely new setup, new eclasses, etc. Presuming something similar for xfce, if xfce4 is taken but xfce isn't, that would work, or perhaps xfce4ng.eclass... *ng is always good for a round... and if it comes to it beyond that, g3, g4, etc. Of course, that's sort of like Gentoo's -rX numbers for ebuilds, but the -rX concept doesn't so well lend itself to the eclass concept as it implies a rather faster turnover than we'd /hope/ to be the case, but -ng/-gX, that works. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-dev] Re: Reinstating eclasses 2008-11-04 23:30 ` Duncan @ 2008-11-05 16:19 ` Steve Long 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Steve Long @ 2008-11-05 16:19 UTC (permalink / raw To: gentoo-dev Duncan wrote: > Joe Peterson wrote: >> In general, it makes sense to me to have an unversioned one if there is >> no version dependency - i.e. if xfce.eclass would likely work for future >> ones (like "xfce5"). I'm not sure why, other than to emphasize that a >> new version is out, upstream packages (like gnome, kde, etc.) include >> the version in the name. I actually just think of kde as "kde", myself, >> even if it happens to be version 4. ;) > > FWIW, KDE changes major versions seldom enough and with enough > differences between versions, that it's a good time to break package > handling and get rid of the cruft at the Gentoo level as well. That's a valid reason, although eclass versioning (which someone, can't mem who, not a portage dev, told me was round the corner) would solve it more cleanly across the tree and allow the simplest name. The attraction of staying with one name is that the eclass can transition ebuilds and then lose the cruft once the packages are out of tree. Given that eclasses can test and change according to EAPI, what we have now would seem sufficient unless there is a major build system change, like KDE4 switching to cmake. > Presuming something similar for xfce, if xfce4 is taken but xfce isn't, > that would work, or perhaps xfce4ng.eclass... *ng is always good for a > round... and if it comes to it beyond that, g3, g4, etc. Of course, > that's sort of like Gentoo's -rX numbers for ebuilds, but the -rX concept > doesn't so well lend itself to the eclass concept as it implies a rather > faster turnover than we'd /hope/ to be the case, but -ng/-gX, that works. > =:^) > I like that naming schema but think it might be overkill here. Might be a more flexible way to do epochs, but I'm not sure we'd need more than one comparable value, and I think sticking to one int is sufficient. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-11-05 16:21 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2008-11-04 16:43 [gentoo-dev] Reinstating eclasses Christoph Mende 2008-11-04 17:35 ` Zac Medico 2008-11-04 18:22 ` Petteri Räty 2008-11-04 18:30 ` Joe Peterson 2008-11-04 18:43 ` Joe Peterson 2008-11-04 19:15 ` [gentoo-dev] " Ryan Hill 2008-11-04 19:19 ` Joe Peterson 2008-11-04 19:23 ` Christoph Mende 2008-11-04 19:30 ` Joe Peterson 2008-11-04 23:30 ` Duncan 2008-11-05 16:19 ` Steve Long
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox