On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 21:07:00 +0300 Peter Volkov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In an awful lot of cases, there's a very high degree of code overlap > > between ebuild versions. > > So? Is size a big problem? If not then again what problem are you > trying to solve?
Code duplication is a big problem. > Commited ebuild corresponds to the package of some version. It was > written, tested and released (commited). Now never touch it without > real necessity even indirectly through PPE. If you wish to improve > package do that in ~arch tree. > > If you wish to make ebuilds writing closer to the programming practice > then yes! There is similarity: being a good upstream you never touch > already released tarbals. You're under the mistaken impression that people will go back and retroactively change existing ebuilds. This won't happen -- if nothing else, because it's an EAPI bump. > And yes. we still have eclasses but they are exceptions and that is > why we have exceptional rule for handling them: review on -dev before > commit. Should we have same rule for PPE? Really, I'd like to see *every* non-trivial new ebuild or major change on bumps reviewed. But that's not going to happen... > > 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. > > Nope, I assume we are all humans and even careful people do mistakes. > If package works do not to touch it. We're talking for new packages, not for retroactively going and making everything in the tree EAPI 3. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
