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 D785813877A for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:39:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1D60BE09E6; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:39:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-oi0-f51.google.com (mail-oi0-f51.google.com [209.85.218.51]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 096EDE087B for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:38:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-oi0-f51.google.com with SMTP id g201so2895829oib.38 for ; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 08:38:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:user-agent; bh=jXnGwCrfxHmE9ZTac4oxVRQY9tEGssZEjAsqUpczaYM=; b=FyWe8pF14JqI/66IHUqwEZX81mbWNbV77qlh5Ahbu2ipeM85Qz2Yw3PAmlZl12zwCk N6fvmswFVmCoi3/RUwpV15Wwc1IijlIV9PBg8ZaSBBrubzi1LBSrN1zz+EUAo5tUHuOp npEyXyQmIVfT8DREKL62GHmW4nimS/wW8D5dFyrYmHKLbFEXSbpd3nhhz+QBT2G64tp3 mHNxn2QpDn+wCDr2Z9tgnp/t6gzhxRwy8nJebW+wKbhAck1tbXrWk005Klhz6Ux7Cv+L +MoF6dpix079UMsJ9qHtPnVs2rcC2KgvzxjjHuvFhXs0h2g2PlCJ8bcfnWFbHa19D4pO 6q6g== X-Received: by 10.60.145.161 with SMTP id sv1mr32644051oeb.56.1408289938200; Sun, 17 Aug 2014 08:38:58 -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 go10sm413043obb.6.2014.08.17.08.38.56 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 17 Aug 2014 08:38:56 -0700 (PDT) Sender: William Hubbs Received: (nullmailer pid 22991 invoked by uid 1000); Sun, 17 Aug 2014 15:38:54 -0000 Date: Sun, 17 Aug 2014 10:38:54 -0500 From: William Hubbs To: gentoo development Cc: mgorny@gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] rfc: eclass issues Message-ID: <20140817153854.GA22840@linux1> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo development , mgorny@gentoo.org 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="tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16) X-Archives-Salt: d1c43367-4317-4962-a3ac-cebdf8acee4b X-Archives-Hash: 5d8521c6c1782a2f5a99983ef377437b --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline 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 --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: Digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlPwzI4ACgkQblQW9DDEZTi72QCcC3AHcT2t2JV3nYugpIp+Dmxm pOgAnipLe92YK+/kqFrYm3ODC4W/uHvN =TdlL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --tThc/1wpZn/ma/RB--