[gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]

[gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]

[hasufell]

"epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still not
implemented as a real helper function.

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]

[Alec Warner]

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still not
> implemented as a real helper function.
>

Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you
have to do things like test which version of epatch the package
manager provides....sounds a lot like EAPI :)

-A

Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]

[Andreas K. Huettel]

> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still not
> > implemented as a real helper function.
> 
> Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you
> have to do things like test which version of epatch the package
> manager provides....sounds a lot like EAPI :)
> 

You know, that's actually a pretty good case *for* base.eclass, eutils.eclass 
and similar... we should probably move more functions there...  :D 

-- 
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
kde, sci, arm, tex, printing

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 889 bytes --]

On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:18:35 +0200
"Andreas K. Huettel" <dilfridge@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> > > "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still
> > > not implemented as a real helper function.
> > 
> > Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you
> > have to do things like test which version of epatch the package
> > manager provides....sounds a lot like EAPI :)
> > 
> 
> You know, that's actually a pretty good case *for* base.eclass,
> eutils.eclass and similar... we should probably move more functions
> there...  :D 

I'm not sure that having to make sure you don't break ten thousand
packages whenever you make a change is a good case... When it's EAPI
controlled, if a change causes problems, it doesn't break anything.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 690 bytes --]

On Wednesday 18 July 2012 12:18:35 Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > > "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still not
> > > implemented as a real helper function.
> > 
> > Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you
> > have to do things like test which version of epatch the package
> > manager provides....sounds a lot like EAPI :)
> 
> You know, that's actually a pretty good case *for* base.eclass,
> eutils.eclass and similar... we should probably move more functions
> there...  :D

i don't see how base vs eutils eclass here makes a difference
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1254 bytes --]

On Wednesday 18 July 2012 13:29:41 Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:18:35 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org>
> > > 
> > > wrote:
> > > > "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still
> > > > not implemented as a real helper function.
> > > 
> > > Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you
> > > have to do things like test which version of epatch the package
> > > manager provides....sounds a lot like EAPI :)
> > 
> > You know, that's actually a pretty good case *for* base.eclass,
> > eutils.eclass and similar... we should probably move more functions
> > there...  :D
> 
> I'm not sure that having to make sure you don't break ten thousand
> packages whenever you make a change is a good case... When it's EAPI
> controlled, if a change causes problems, it doesn't break anything.

and the obvious con is that it's hard to add new features and extend 
implementation details without also upgrading all EAPI aspects.  locking down 
EAPI is great for the format of the file and for simpler commands (like most of 
the install funcs), but for more complicated functions, an eclass is nicer.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]