From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KxVMc-0005PI-Vf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:31:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C0D9BE0456; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:31:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 775CAE0456 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:31:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE7E564383 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:31:08 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.928 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.928 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.671, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id d+2E3NgN0lJD for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:31:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0674064281 for ; Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:30:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1KxVML-000894-2L for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:30:53 +0000 Received: from ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.99.190]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:30:53 +0000 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 04 Nov 2008 23:30:53 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Reinstating eclasses Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2008 23:30:44 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20081104174307.5bd3d834@gentoo.org> <491097EB.4070608@gentoo.org> <20081104131525.6821d0ed@halo.dirtyepic.sk.ca> <20081104202353.43c68d49@gentoo.org> <4910A2C7.3030703@gentoo.org> 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 X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-99-190.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Sender: news Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: d9e45d4a-7eb8-49cd-8162-d6be4661c309 X-Archives-Hash: 9d1dfaa549495f5261deeb50d562df5b Joe Peterson posted 4910A2C7.3030703@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:30:15 -0500: > In general, it makes sense to me to have an unversioned one if there is > no version dependency - i.e. if xfce.eclass would likely work for futur= e > ones (like "xfce5"). I'm not sure why, other than to emphasize that a > new version is out, upstream packages (like gnome, kde, etc.) include > the version in the name. I actually just think of kde as "kde", myself= , > even if it happens to be version 4. ;) FWIW, KDE changes major versions seldom enough and with enough=20 differences between versions, that it's a good time to break package=20 handling and get rid of the cruft at the Gentoo level as well. In the=20 case of KDE4, before anything even close to stable ever hit the tree, the= =20 Gentoo/KDE folks took the opportunity to require various EAPI-2 features=20 including sets, thereby removing much of the cruft and maintainability=20 headaches of the kde3 packages and their corresponding eclasses. kde4=20 eclasses were then the logical choice, since the unversioned kde=20 nameslots were already taken, and if/when there's a kde5, as with kde4,=20 it's likely to be so different it'll be time to once again break with the= =20 past and use an entirely new setup, new eclasses, etc. Presuming something similar for xfce, if xfce4 is taken but xfce isn't,=20 that would work, or perhaps xfce4ng.eclass... *ng is always good for a=20 round... and if it comes to it beyond that, g3, g4, etc. Of course,=20 that's sort of like Gentoo's -rX numbers for ebuilds, but the -rX concept= =20 doesn't so well lend itself to the eclass concept as it implies a rather=20 faster turnover than we'd /hope/ to be the case, but -ng/-gX, that works.= =20 =3D:^) --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman