From: Brian Harring <ferringb@gmail.com>
To: mabi@gentoo.org
Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: eblits.eclass
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 21:30:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100411043045.GA6208@hrair> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BC0F659.7000506@gentoo.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1918 bytes --]
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 12:06:17AM +0200, Matti Bickel wrote:
> I propose to add eblits.eclass[2] (attached to this message) with the
> purpose and author comments from [1].
Counter proposal; finish off the remaining steps of elib related steps
from glep33 and integrate it into an EAPI.
> So please enlighten me of any problems you can think of that adding
> eblits.eclass as proposed above would cause. I'd be more than happy if
> we can get an update on elibs progress, too.
Please note that FILESDIR access isn't guranteed during metadata
sourcing- pkgcore specifically does _not_ set that var to catch ebuild
screwups. This is why mips-sources has their eblits loadup w/in
pkg_setup.
Honestly I'm not much for turning down this particularly pkgcore
protection since it's caught some screwy access in the past. The
problem here is your eblit-php-metadata function- the function is
executed in the global scope which means it will be validly blocked
under pkgcore.
Please flip through glep33- the usage of eblits doesn't match their
original intention there, the intention was to move non metadata
functionality into libraries to be loaded up after sourcing.
Basically a compliment to eclasses. However you're using eblits for
metadata purposes which is contrary to that intention.
> As the need for such an eclass is very real (we really, really want
> php-5.3 in the tree!), I want to limit discussion to one week, ending
> April 18th. If there are no objections, I'll add the eclass after that date.
In looking through your usage of eblits, I'm not actually seeing any
reason this technique *must* be used. Could you please clarify if
there is some edge case I'm missing requiring eblits?
The reason I ask is that I'd rather see elibs resurrected/finished
(I'll do the work if no one else will) than have the eblits hackery
used.
~harring
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-11 4:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-10 22:06 [gentoo-dev] RFC: eblits.eclass Matti Bickel
2010-04-11 4:30 ` Brian Harring [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100411043045.GA6208@hrair \
--to=ferringb@gmail.com \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
--cc=mabi@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox