On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 19:50:17 +0300 Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > В Вск, 30/11/2008 в 16:10 +0100, Santiago M. Mola пишет: > > per-package eclasses [1]. > > That way, it would be easy to avoid duplication of not only > > HOMEPAGE but also SRC_URI, LICENSE, or any other part of an ebuild. > > Having per-package eclasses (PPE) just to set common HOMEPAGE is > definitely overkill. What other reasons for PPE to exist?
In an awful lot of cases, there's a very high degree of code overlap between ebuild versions. > If you want to separate common code, then PPE is very dangerous. > > Take for example ebuilds which share same src_*() function which you > had to modify a bit with version bump. To be absolutely sure that you > have not broke anything you'll have to check all versions of the > package or there are chances that you broke stable tree and have not > noticed that. Of course the same stands for eclasses. The difference > between PPE and global eclasses is that 1. PPE covers less packages > and it'll take longer to notice that error 2. per-package things are > changing more rapidly and thus more changes to PPE will be required. > All this means that we'll have more breakages. So what are the > benefits to overbalance this minuses? You appear to be assuming that Gentoo developers are careless and incompetent. The ebuild format already gives developers more than enough rope to hang themselves and every single user -- per package eclasses don't alter this in any way. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
