From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A746139694 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77ECC21C132; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (mail.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 34A05E0C11 for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2a01:e34:eeaa:6bd0:4ecc:6aff:fe03:1cfc]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: aballier) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AA00433BEBE for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2017 18:52:19 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2017 19:52:13 +0100 From: Alexis Ballier To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [PATCH] sys-devel/autoconf: Convert from eblits into an eclass, #586424 Message-ID: <20170323195213.406ba9f8@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: <1490288005.1534.1.camel@gentoo.org> References: <20170316093806.31977-1-mgorny@gentoo.org> <20170320083544.GZ24205@vapier> <2240597.YoP4Ev77Vx@porto> <1652433.oqbzW57v8l@porto> <20170323105101.0f622f66@gentoo.org> <1490288005.1534.1.camel@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.14.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; 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: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: ae2ccc11-494c-465b-980b-e143bae7d598 X-Archives-Hash: e999a981c76b0fa6c036f1300bb9e90f On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 17:53:25 +0100 Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny wrote: > On czw, 2017-03-23 at 10:51 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Mar 2017 10:41:39 +0100 > > "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > =20 > > > Am Dienstag, 21. M=C3=A4rz 2017, 11:24:39 CET schrieb Andreas K. > > > Huettel: =20 > > > >=20 > > > > So what's so special about your packages that you *need* a hack > > > > as ugly as eblits? > > > > =20 > > >=20 > > > No response. Seems like there are no real arguments for eblits. > > > =20 > >=20 > > I guess the argument is not for or against eblit but rather about > > "when you want to change something you don't maintain, you have to > > justify it properly" =20 >=20 > Do you think really think it's fine for maintainer to: >=20 > 1. go against best practices, principle of least surprise and > basically make it harder for anyone else to touch the ebuild (-> aim > for bus factor of 1 and/or making himself indispensable)? This is very (too) subjective. > 2. enforce package managers to exhibit non-PMS behavior by making core > system packages rely on it? Not to mention minor incompatibilities > causing silent breakage. What, exactly, is non-PMS ? The access rule has been added after last EAPI was approved it seems. [...]