Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [RFC] EAPI 2 Draft

["Alec Warner" <antarus@gentoo.org>]

On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:43 AM, Steve Long <slong@rathaus.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
> Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>
>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org>:
>>> Both approaches are essentially equivalent but it's a little simpler
>>> for ebuild writer if they don't have to customize the output file
>>> name.
>>
>>  One needs exceptions for all kind of systems, for example I had to
>> workaround Trac which adds ?format=raw to a tarball URI.  There seems
>> to be a solution in Trac as the guys from fedarahosted fixed the two I
>> needed (tmpwatch, mlocate).  So the -> operator is quite useful and I
>> agree with David that the functionality is doubled.
>>
> Clearly src-uri transformation is useful. Others have given examples of how
> it would be useful to an eclass. Irrespective of how the actual transform
> is done in the ;sf=tbz2 case, both _are_ valid use-cases.
>
> As such I don't see any reason not to put it in the EAPI. Future extensions
> can be trialled in eutils, and these can both be allowed syntax for other
> package managers to comply with (one implementation has already been given)
> and ebuild devs to feel comfortable using in the Gentoo tree. Why slow the
> innovation down? It's good enough for use as-is.

Because then we have to wait for all the PM's to implement this
magical code; where if we put it in eutils
we can use it right now (and most overlays can use it too).  'Why slow
the innovation down?' :)

-Alec

>
>
>
>