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 D25D713877A for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:03:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CD08E08E2; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:03:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oa0-f45.google.com (mail-oa0-f45.google.com [209.85.219.45]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B19B1E08DC for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:03:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id o6so5773267oag.4 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:03:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to :user-agent; bh=6gGGYCWvnHekg5edqaYBQd5f1rh8dSxvgGVAM+rwPzg=; b=dviKuevFon8KKt1FFYa0zrghri8eb1YXOVYnnXVGy0IbBfzsvi19Z66/Eii2o8f+XF wR9yfxn9mGaBXFheCjYBcEgYOuSxnWhOmfyyKZiwR/CX6fDTESHLB4qktlFnrnw6zKVe 8D+J9jxU3hqjjH8T+XFwA50iQ6fPxII3looK7y5VFFaRjn4Q+1SA+2IsXOHgJPtMoIkf wkAKzVMc8XqykrZzWDSmpY079c8xtggl+saJb6WLyEEickAtP64vV0+Ck9u48XnMsl+y aySYk28j8lkHi1PGMDQyUZLHmQhU0uDaMBiRuyiARccGf4oFU6E2YdL3Iu1/XprDv+9w 3uiQ== X-Received: by 10.182.71.71 with SMTP id s7mr3568196obu.71.1403197412892; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:03:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from linux1 (cpe-76-187-91-128.tx.res.rr.com. [76.187.91.128]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id e16sm10864665obs.26.2014.06.19.10.03.31 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 10:03:31 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 11856 invoked by uid 1000); Thu, 19 Jun 2014 17:03:11 -0000 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 12:03:11 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Eclass vs EAPI For Utility Functions (Patching/etc) Message-ID: <20140619170311.GA11784@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: 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; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Archives-Salt: 56815556-8a15-4142-840a-f54fe0da7bb4 X-Archives-Hash: 942ac4638228f325dc1a3cfde557e42a --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Hi all: On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 07:00:15AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > During the council meeting there was a bit of a philosophical debate > over the proper role of EAPI vs implementing functions in eclasses. I > felt that it was important enough to at least get more community input > before we continue voting on features like user patching/etc which > tend to favor an EAPI-based approach. I am strongly in favor of the eapi-based approach as well, for all of the reasons mentioned in the thread so far. Eclasses can and should be used for functions, imo, that are used by some ebuilds, but once it is determined that functionality in an eclass has potential for very wide use, that functionality should be moved into an eapi. The eutils functions are a prime example of this. These are general purpose functions, so there is no reason for them to be kept in an eclass. William --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlOjF88ACgkQblQW9DDEZTgiXACgoDGZFGYqFBkJyR1PD0Veyc/U XdcAniCqz8eoaoArcR6zodTH2I0FChli =Q3/3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --sm4nu43k4a2Rpi4c--