Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-04-09

[Tom Wijsman <TomWij@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1494 bytes --]

On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:02:44 +0200
"vivo75@gmail.com" <vivo75@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually putting everithing in an eclass could make maintenaince
> easyer and faster while providing history of changes.

That's not necessarily true, this entirely depends on how the eclass is
implemented and what you are putting into it. This also takes into
account not having one eclass to rule em all or an eclass that covers
just two lines, there's a right amount to it; in this case, the eclass
just doesn't work out the way you'd want to. It breaks because of that.

> My example being mysql (and forks) which use mysql*.eclass.
> Stability for the mysql packages has been good, while maintaining
> _multiple_ versions of them actually useable.
>
> Disclaimer:
> The actual mantainers opinion may be even the opposite of this one,
> and mine may very well be biased, since I'm the one who moved the
> ebuild in the eclasses few years ago.

Some eclasses being usable doesn't mean that all eclasses are usable.
This thread isn't about moving code to an eclass, it's rather about the
eclass itself being poorly designed and the ways people want to deal
(or not deal) with it; this in itself is a sub discussion of whether to
plan to get rid of EAPI 0 next council meeting.

-- 
With kind regards,

Tom Wijsman (TomWij)
Gentoo Developer

E-mail address  : TomWij@gentoo.org
GPG Public Key  : 6D34E57D
GPG Fingerprint : C165 AF18 AB4C 400B C3D2  ABF0 95B2 1FCD 6D34 E57D

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]