From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB52C13877A for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:14:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DF64BE0A6C; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:14:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-f67.google.com (mail-wg0-f67.google.com [74.125.82.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D04E4E0A0B for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 12:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f67.google.com with SMTP id b13so1418888wgh.2 for ; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:14:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-type; bh=wcduJ6dehf2l58G093PDq/fwxRyJyT9ebXGXSVmbv4U=; b=PyLuTURm4f96sKgolgxPFjboehVif2SWrVuCWgxYDiC6Jc6zv57wg01Tk2lVeD0Q8C bL2hq1HLQVN9nC3UYDlS3zh59ANRs2oQyfdAfbtCDLhydX8IWSedr3+ciKQ/dDGL1kfE TH0RUblCKZjhtSoGE+nMbiSX8DlAx7Ochch3ciSzBR6l6TlQJeGGcCPt2qwZP0hh2Hc6 woqDssmdwNWXFnZA1vbZGL2GAsUIVuvuI3OJplPY8K5QfZTPVGxmH04AU3fY2uLZC7hA 2UXvPY/aX+0D8fZW1KRsNkzb/WLpdBB3ilkumOQk5g5HwUM+osAIb7Uah8ak06tZiJdv 8umg== X-Received: by 10.180.183.131 with SMTP id em3mr18943075wic.56.1402834457335; Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cpc2-broo7-2-0-cust637.14-2.cable.virginm.net. [86.11.186.126]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id l4sm8364401wiy.0.2014.06.15.05.14.16 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Sun, 15 Jun 2014 05:14:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:14:12 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Eclass vs EAPI For Utility Functions (Patching/etc) Message-ID: <20140615131412.18cdfc26@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: References: X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.23; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) 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: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Sig_/y/mxP.Q3s+uIyuakaNs0d=n"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 1922d894-883b-40c9-a154-3c96167a32a3 X-Archives-Hash: 88525830bf25b69d88b82c14d2fd8291 --Sig_/y/mxP.Q3s+uIyuakaNs0d=n Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 15 Jun 2014 07:00:15 -0400 Rich Freeman 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. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh --Sig_/y/mxP.Q3s+uIyuakaNs0d=n Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlOdjhcACgkQ96zL6DUtXhF+3wCeMMJvDp88RjTLqjWaCYKYYiuS cuQAoOUp20ow/cilnovB7y2hiDm0X7sm =a03c -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/y/mxP.Q3s+uIyuakaNs0d=n--