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 3295D13828B for ; Sat, 28 May 2016 05:08:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DE33C141E5; Sat, 28 May 2016 05:07:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-yw0-f193.google.com (mail-yw0-f193.google.com [209.85.161.193]) (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 C5B8421C012 for ; Sat, 28 May 2016 05:07:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yw0-f193.google.com with SMTP id y6so8857245ywe.0 for ; Fri, 27 May 2016 22:07:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=6uU25Yj87U2fo62t6JTh9fcRPg5gy4p5AdZIJKPWVkc=; b=mLZYGMgDZVUWGVbDie2yW2PIf/JRBWG6QvKftcPmtdHEgxGZHE/JZf/cLKLijkmLYM BR8ZDRxLkP08Vqqf/HOBH0js/q1Pyd29KuiDomBGaOz3Ngc0LBOQzGhv45OBs3HIWGZo iWGZRISj/7swLLpXp6L4MSTPfrV/ALXv6WKunAIgqdDD6+/RnFev2IrLXkRtDKcePeZ4 cNyvugT1euvH36c6IM0TQUdp3fDQ+Q/C5iLNUYF+e1UT1uwLoDMgBqaYhcPYX7eQmkiR WQSY0gDb0l6988I9tXhJCqxxVLhVB1lWfhQRwcWTdD8myk8C0rjt14/3AEj7WTKQg+qX gJZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=6uU25Yj87U2fo62t6JTh9fcRPg5gy4p5AdZIJKPWVkc=; b=U62sS9XmgOSnFGJiWXfZal+dxufjZUcU6XLj8x1o2XVQ1xiy/zSAsTj/1miRZzzbnq uYsIwMgPbNIhb5uZ+rKtfsW1kL6la0zXYnCbVzT/zwO9X4tKDSQszKKHcwUNnQ1VNYkc 7t8xOHZrKIceuSSGb1r8S+His2a9fLacS52I6+gU5N+x9+GX33lUYU4ghDhErsIpN7W0 o8AU/4OaJO7gqQGZRoXR2raFKVSNqGxXM0MtOUgKK1cKNR50Ys+MNuG1qRsZoP6hQwYH dElChE5daF5xKPg7PBykPWUSNoawXv61jru3JzP7rL0UgxY2TLVt57ROq4JXTnDLDZMl as8w== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJQ3I1/G5eb//w0FWCtMFXgPZgEWCsMcTvIuInwd2ORUiZB4JvUXmgY21ZkvxlOnjSFdX80MD9+JEKm2Q== 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 X-Received: by 10.37.115.10 with SMTP id o10mr3591101ybc.177.1464412076586; Fri, 27 May 2016 22:07:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.13.241.199 with HTTP; Fri, 27 May 2016 22:07:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 28 May 2016 17:07:56 +1200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: What are eblits? From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev Cc: qa@gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: c02def77-f5ea-4d14-9269-8e515535a819 X-Archives-Hash: d929435f40bb410803c10805be2576f0 On 28 May 2016 at 05:35, rindeal wrote: > This whole concept, however, raises the question (as suggested by > Ciaran McCreesh and Duncan) if it's allowed to split ebuilds to > several bash scripts and what have QA and dev-manual got to say in > this regard? Personally I'd say the biggest risk from a QA perspective of this approach is important changes shared amongst ebuilds might require the change be done in an eblit, but the change itself may require all existing users of the ebuilds perform a reinstall. This is already a problem with eclasses where eclass changes might necessitate all dependent ebuilds being rebuilt in some way, but we fence that out of existence with QA policies against such changes. ( A popular fencing mechanism is via EAPI conditionals and ENV vars which require the end ebuild to explicitly opt in to the change for it to take affect, thus, causing the propagation to occur explicitly ) Under eblits, the same sorts of logic can occur, but the temptation to change the eblit and not the ebuild is substantially greater. But the necessity to bump the ebuild to cascade the rebuild is still there ( and greater ) Which means in practice, eblits can make cascades harder, and encourage devs not to perform ... Which is a rather bad combination of pressures. Hence, eblits as they currently exist are experts-only and a big danger ground for QA violations *to occur within*, even under the presumption that they're not inherently a QA violation in themselves. -- Kent KENTNL - https://metacpan.org/author/KENTNL