Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Moving HOMEPAGE out of ebuilds for the future

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1736 bytes --]

On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:07:00 +0300
Peter Volkov <pva@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > In an awful lot of cases, there's a very high degree of code overlap
> > between ebuild versions.
> 
> So? Is size a big problem? If not then again what problem are you
> trying to solve?

Code duplication is a big problem.

> Commited ebuild corresponds to the package of some version. It was
> written, tested and released (commited). Now never touch it without
> real necessity even indirectly through PPE. If you wish to improve
> package do that in ~arch tree.
> 
> If you wish to make ebuilds writing closer to the programming practice
> then yes! There is similarity: being a good upstream you never touch
> already released tarbals.

You're under the mistaken impression that people will go back and
retroactively change existing ebuilds. This won't happen -- if nothing
else, because it's an EAPI bump.

> And yes. we still have eclasses but they are exceptions and that is
> why we have exceptional rule for handling them: review on -dev before
> commit. Should we have same rule for PPE?

Really, I'd like to see *every* non-trivial new ebuild or major change
on bumps reviewed. But that's not going to happen...

> > You appear to be assuming that Gentoo developers are careless and
> > incompetent. The ebuild format already gives developers more than
> > enough rope to hang themselves and every single user -- per package
> > eclasses don't alter this in any way.
> 
> Nope, I assume we are all humans and even careful people do mistakes.
> If package works do not to touch it.

We're talking for new packages, not for retroactively going and making
everything in the tree EAPI 3.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]