On Sun, 2005-01-23 at 17:27 -0500, Chris Frey wrote: > I've made one suggestion earlier (including eclasses in binary packages > and "source seed" packages), and while those features would be really cool, > I'm still pondering the base issue as I see it.
Actually, both of these suggestions are quite good, and I definitely would endorse them, if they haven't been accepted already by the portage team. Those guys do an awful lot of cool things that they have to let out slowly to maintain compatibility with older portage versions. > Correct me if I'm wrong, but eclass files currently don't have the same > ability to go through the ~arch unstable/stable process. You are correct. > How do these get tested currently? With ebuilds, a user can see ~arch > versions and test them if he wants. I don't see the same ability with > eclasses. They are tested by the developers that work on them via ebuilds that use their functions. When an eclass function breaks, it is readily apparent in ebuilds that use that function. In many ways, testing an eclass is easier than testing an ebuild, as you can limit your testing to the one function which you are currently implementing. > Feel free to reply directly if you don't want to keep this on the list. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager Games - Developer Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
