Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]
On Wednesday 18 July 2012 13:29:41 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:18:35 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell > > > > > > wrote: > > > > "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still > > > > not implemented as a real helper function. > > > > > > Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you > > > have to do things like test which version of epatch the package > > > manager providessounds a lot like EAPI :) > > > > You know, that's actually a pretty good case *for* base.eclass, > > eutils.eclass and similar... we should probably move more functions > > there... :D > > I'm not sure that having to make sure you don't break ten thousand > packages whenever you make a change is a good case... When it's EAPI > controlled, if a change causes problems, it doesn't break anything. and the obvious con is that it's hard to add new features and extend implementation details without also upgrading all EAPI aspects. locking down EAPI is great for the format of the file and for simpler commands (like most of the install funcs), but for more complicated functions, an eclass is nicer. -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]
On Wednesday 18 July 2012 12:18:35 Andreas K. Huettel wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell wrote: > > > "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still not > > > implemented as a real helper function. > > > > Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you > > have to do things like test which version of epatch the package > > manager providessounds a lot like EAPI :) > > You know, that's actually a pretty good case *for* base.eclass, > eutils.eclass and similar... we should probably move more functions > there... :D i don't see how base vs eutils eclass here makes a difference -mike signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]
On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 18:18:35 +0200 "Andreas K. Huettel" wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell > > wrote: > > > "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still > > > not implemented as a real helper function. > > > > Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you > > have to do things like test which version of epatch the package > > manager providessounds a lot like EAPI :) > > > > You know, that's actually a pretty good case *for* base.eclass, > eutils.eclass and similar... we should probably move more functions > there... :D I'm not sure that having to make sure you don't break ten thousand packages whenever you make a change is a good case... When it's EAPI controlled, if a change causes problems, it doesn't break anything. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell wrote: > > "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still not > > implemented as a real helper function. > > Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you > have to do things like test which version of epatch the package > manager providessounds a lot like EAPI :) > You know, that's actually a pretty good case *for* base.eclass, eutils.eclass and similar... we should probably move more functions there... :D -- Andreas K. Huettel Gentoo Linux developer kde, sci, arm, tex, printing
Re: [gentoo-dev] epatch still no helper function? [from eutils.eclass]
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM, hasufell wrote: > "epatch" is so widely used and basic that I wonder why it's still not > implemented as a real helper function. > Because then its harder to change, it must be in PMS, otherwise you have to do things like test which version of epatch the package manager providessounds a lot like EAPI :) -A
