From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1R4UNq-0003rg-L8 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:06:55 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 66EF321C246; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:06:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-iy0-f181.google.com (mail-iy0-f181.google.com [209.85.210.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4883921C22A for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 09:06:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iaeo4 with SMTP id o4so2833246iae.40 for ; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:06:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=Ybh1rsE+EtKEvOH7fWVrm3ipglpIlLJ3Njb17LmafYU=; b=CPP4bG3A4+b2alBJL5RQpaEefmrm/jRRpfJjyCPeQebgaUaFrDK0hj8W8RpHvqCcQs 8+Akh654K+AMxfpQnzX8klwepkqjo0GOaVOheGYUYIxx1dE4VBQJwweTleKp3s70KEDz O1ibD0Bdx7gtL/j5TWXQ+bybZb/kCEdb/hyRk= Received: by 10.42.130.138 with SMTP id v10mr1679823ics.159.1316163965779; Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:06:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.gmail.com:587 (74-95-192-101-SFBA.hfc.comcastbusiness.net. [74.95.192.101]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id df21sm8535258ibb.9.2011.09.16.02.06.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:06:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by smtp.gmail.com:587 (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:06:05 -0700 Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 02:06:05 -0700 From: Brian Harring To: Donnie Berkholz Cc: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] new `usex` helper Message-ID: <20110916090605.GD16239@localhost> References: <201109131756.19714.vapier@gentoo.org> <20110914020228.GP31178@comet> <20110914021449.GA5106@localhost.hobnob.com> <20110914191641.GQ31178@comet> <20110915002949.GA16239@localhost> <20110916030019.GA5000@comet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110916030019.GA5000@comet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: e39dfb80aa23592644d95e8861a48fb8 On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:00:19PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > On 17:29 Wed 14 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 02:16:41PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > On 19:14 Tue 13 Sep , Brian Harring wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:02:28PM -0500, Donnie Berkholz wrote: > > > > > On 17:56 Tue 13 Sep , Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > > > > useful enough for EAPI ? or should i just stick it into eutils.eclass > > > > > > ? OR BOTH !? > > > > > > > > > > I prefer to avoid EAPI whenever possible, as it just makes things slower > > > > > and more complex. > > > > > > > > Exactly the wrong approach; it winds up with master > > > > repositories/overlays cloning the functionality all over the damn > > > > place. > > > > > > Why are people cloning anything if it's in eutils.eclass in gentoo-x86? > > > > There are more repositories than just gentoo-x86, and overlay is *not* > > the only configuration in use. > > Who else besides you is using any other configuration? Should we really > give a crap about the 0.001% population with some weird setup when we're > trying to improve things for the 99.999% one? Specious argument; the point of controllable stacking was to avoid the issue of overlay's forcing their eclasses upon gentoo-x86 ebuilds (which may not support those modified eclasses) via the old PORTDIR_OVERLAY behaviour. This is why multiple repositories have layout.conf master definitions- to explicitly mark that they require/consume a seperate repo. What you're basically proposing is a variation of the "push format definitions into a central tree, and require everyone to use that central tree". This discussion has come and gone; I say that being one of the folks who was *pushing for the repository solution*. The problem there is it fundamentally enables (more forces) fragmentation. Realistically I assume you're taking the stance "EAPI gets in the way, lets do away with it"- if so, well, out with it, and I'll dredge up the old logs/complaints that lead to EAPI. > > In the old days of the PM only handling a single overlay stack, what > > you're suggesting would be less heinous- heinous in detail, but > > pragmatic in reality. These days it's a regressive approach- > > requiring everyone to slave gentoo-x86 isn't sane, nor is avoiding > > eapi (resulting in people having to duplicate code into each > > repository stack). > > I don't know many people who aren't using gentoo-x86 or a repo that > pulls in changes directly from it. rephrase please; either you're saying "everyone uses gentoo-x86" which is sort of true (funtoo/chrome aren't necessarily riding HEAD/trunk however which means things can get ugly for derivative repository usage), but still ignores the situations where people have overlays w/ developmental eclasses that they need to selectively control where it overrides (which is where the notion of repo stacking comes into play). ~brian