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 49CEC13877A for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 22:22:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 822FAE08EE; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 22:22:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ve0-f182.google.com (mail-ve0-f182.google.com [209.85.128.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9ECB0E0845 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 22:22:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ve0-f182.google.com with SMTP id oy12so3001208veb.27 for ; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:22:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:content-type; bh=e3Yz892JNgizHDKj15wRRuUx362v6CvdN/tKxlgzr9c=; b=HHM/KS5iqywHdzPJyT7IhBLJh0kQPyFagrw6FQ2Lh1tA7fRzdzWx9QHqQ3oZ2CV8G0 FHBsEVqDyniVRFOu7SM2C4fD9KI8YnS0Fj1ZYmUukMiUQYcezHvmyDB+ovYyJEhZfJPt ngPmQG0cy89JWUYCaesHH/j/kG0AOXfyDu3Y2kmEs1uVD7efu4I0n4jBMPOWZTwZJvH+ /SQDdagPdh2NgpeCm1kmevzwEyahySeN5xm0yVC9nZZ5Yzdn/dE9N29tsHQkpaFbVQyJ YRrniEbttBOjg5fl87DcRALWsMP9RhZDQdZHjhbpj4i9IfPlt5cUOiSND/vr2FX00TiW VYAA== 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 10.52.179.38 with SMTP id dd6mr5240937vdc.21.1403216552876; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.52.30.227 with HTTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:22:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20140619220540.GD4582@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> References: <20140615153010.173d2ff3@pomiot.lan> <20140619220540.GD4582@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:22:32 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: VsOBV0ItkaDq5rhPhX4jiVTaQYY Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Eclass vs EAPI For Utility Functions (Patching/etc) From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Archives-Salt: 48102e0b-5c5c-4c39-9254-59bf022ad82e X-Archives-Hash: c5d7eef07457e14dec92350f6a2eb900 On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 6:05 PM, Steven J. Long wrote: > So which way do you actually prefer? > > You appear to be arguing for, and implementing, common code by EAPI, > in the rest of your mail. Since that's always been the point of > them, based on developer consensus about what is truly essential, > and what is only needed for a subset of the tree, that's fine by me. This is all becoming moot since the Council just voted on this earlier this week, nearly unanimously bringing in user patches. However, I believe he was advocating going with an EAPI in this case, but offering alternatives. While brainstorming the options I was thinking that you could almost have an EAPI-like eclass. That is, instead of declaring an EAPI every ebuild could just source an EAPI-foo eclass which basically does the same thing. Of course, this would be somewhat less flexible than what we do today - if we went as far as being able to determine EAPI without sourcing an ebuild (no, I'm not bringing back that debate now) then having EAPI in the PM lets you change the ebuild format in almost entirely arbitrary ways over time. There is nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate in a thread like this. Hopefully the Council members can weigh the arguments on their own. :) Rich