Re: [gentoo-dev] Eclass vs EAPI For Utility Functions (Patching/etc)

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

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 966 bytes --]

On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:00:15 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> The Eclass argument goes like this:
> Eclasses already work in every PM.  Half of what we're debating is
> already in eutils.  Why move this code into the PM, where it has to be
> re-implemented everywhere?  If anything we should be moving more PM
> functionality out and into eclasses where we can have competing
> implementations and more flexibility.

The big problem with eclasses is that they're far too messy and
complicated. Sure, you can *technically* express (say) ABI dependencies
using a complicated eclass which translates them into a convoluted
series of use dependencies, nested || dependencies etc (more or less
correctly most of the time). But the package mangler is being given less
information that way, which means it has to have all sorts of dodgy
heuristics to deal with them, and can't give good error messages when
it breaks.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]