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

[Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1648 bytes --]

On Tuesday 09 April 2013 14:12:33 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 23:20 Mon 08 Apr     , Ryan Hill wrote:
> > Hrm.  I just meant that package eclasses suck. I hate the fact that they
> > effectively make stable moot.  There is no such thing as a stable keyword
> > for a package built by an eclass.  It's like working without a net. 
> > When it's a core system package it's twice as bad.
> > 
> > As far as these eclasses go, toolchain is the worst.  Yes, it is fragile
> > and complex.  It's over a decade's worth of spaghetti code.  It builds 12
> > years of gcc releases.  It's hairy.  Everything depends on everything
> > else, and everything is based on assumptions and implications that may
> > or may not still be relevant.  Making "obviously" correct changes has
> > often broken something somewhere else, time and again.  I'm not telling
> > you this for some kind of perverse bragging rights.  It's not something
> > to be proud of.  I just want you to understand how easy it is to fuck
> > things up.
> > 
> > When it breaks, it breaks stable.  I absolutely hate breaking stable.  I
> > lose sleep over it.
> 
> You could probably deal with this through much more aggressive bumping
> of eclass versions in concert with ebuild bumps, followed by eclass
> freezes once their users go stable.

we can could create a "toolchain-stable.eclass".  whenever we stabilize a new 
version, we copy the current toolchain.eclass to toolchain-stable.eclass and 
change the newly stabilized ebuild to inherit that instead.

for all other versions (unstable, and older stable), we have them use the 
toolchain.eclass.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]