[gentoo-dev] rfc: eclass issues

[William Hubbs <williamh@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 845 bytes --]

All,

I spoke with mgorny on IRC and found out what his concerns are about our
current eclasses.

First, he thinks we should get rid of base.eclass.

I know there is work going on to get rid of it, but I haven't really
looked into the status much yet. I do agree though, we shouldn't have a
general-purpose eclass like this that overrides default phase functions.
Things like this belong in PMS; not in an eclass.

The other concern he mentioned was indirectly inherited eclasses being
able to override phase functions.

He said for example that if an ebuild inherits foo and foo inherits bar,
foo should export all of the phase functions bar exports.

This may cause some boilerplating in some of the eclasses, so I'm
wondering if it would be feasible to make EXPORT_FUNCTIONS work only for
the first level of inheritance?

Thoughts?

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]