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 E1E3C1381F3 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:17:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA685E0972; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:17:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3F1AFE0970 for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:17:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.5] (blfd-4d08e1ec.pool.mediaWays.net [77.8.225.236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BF1E733BE3D for ; Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:17:01 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5165664A.5050909@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:16:58 +0200 From: hasufell User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130314 Thunderbird/17.0.4 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Re: Call for agenda items - Council meeting 2013-04-09 References: <20817.55135.354752.397336@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <201304070037.28554.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20130406200511.01d4c0e9@caribou.gateway.2wire.net> <201304071409.03862.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <20130408232028.56cdad67@caribou.gateway.2wire.net> <20130409181233.GA10952@comet.hsd1.mn.comcast.net> <516558F8.5050405@gentoo.org> <20130410150030.47cceae2@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> In-Reply-To: <20130410150030.47cceae2@TOMWIJ-GENTOO> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: d975f613-8213-410e-b8fc-4c7ee82790ca X-Archives-Hash: bc57c43e80b014a985251947587b2a96 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/10/2013 03:00 PM, Tom Wijsman wrote: > On Wed, 10 Apr 2013 14:20:08 +0200 hasufell > wrote: > >> That will introduce a few problems (such as how to handle global >> eclass scope), but I think they are solvable. > > Portage has solved these problems, no need to solve hem again. It has not, because it's not a problem on PM level. > > Eclasses aren't meant to be used like this, there will surely be > some trouble when going through with this; why take this meta > approach if you could rewrite the eclass itself instead and make it > conform? To ensure that code _behind_ a stable ebuild does not change. EAPI versions already try to solve this and that's why we have EAPI confusion. Now we want to add eclass confusion by introducing versions for them too? It's like you would "statically link" the eclasses if that makes it more clear what I am talking about. > >> Imo we could even ignore PMS here, since we would basically just >> dump all related eclass functions into the ebuild and drop the >> eclass inherit. We could write a tool to do and revert that and >> make it more readable etc. > > I don't think that this is the way we should cope with legacy > code. > > This makes the situation even worse; this would ignore a > specification, re-implement something we already have in Portage > and lead to code that can't and shouldn't be re-used. I think time > is better spent on making it work with Portage than to waste time > reinventing parts of Portage. > It does not ignore specification. It complies with specification. The problem is if it can be implemented sanely. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRZWZKAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzMoUIAJWTudQ1/3UmZtJhvkttsgb5 GZS34RIU86VjntSpDgmkPGwkRcCxPoV2IjOuWq8l4+mhFo3imlI9pcpPiKyZpNZD j8Fw/fJjiDs2+Qc7OeND64TZzGzTiFYGhzNnEN5AbDrUhvBUf9Mnyk1/EB6AXRhX uTDYIQIO5PyZ9fY+N9aTX0GxfgKQZdh06j3t350hgwBDyGJCl/96Nl+UBRLBFrQ6 g9s5Hp7cYxvQ/lvi7zIfuZzqWgS5j6eqxL3gF0qDiqVk9PcOLZaoxlNg9IqWtAWk ZyAHmrLa3RQiLLSsojAg5TrtmQKmDvaOvaKwpiMe+AsViDFYIFOhSnvFRl8Oglc= =vWvj -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----