Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

2010-04-16 Thread James Cloos
ZM == Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org writes: ZM It's called eclass-overrides and it's been mentioned earlier in the thread. But that is useless unless you ignore the metadata cache. And ignoring the metadata cache makes portage unusably slow. It needs to work exacly as I described it. And

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

2010-04-16 Thread James Cloos
ZM == Zac Medico zmed...@gentoo.org writes: Portage does not need to validate eclass changes. ZM Then how do you propose that it handles metadata changes that are ZM attributed to eclass changes? For example, see the issue they had ZM with vmware.eclass changes in this bug: ZM

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

2010-04-16 Thread Ciaran McCreesh
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0400 James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote: OK. Let me rephrase. Portage does not need to validate local changes. Sure it does. If it doesn't, and your local changes affect metadata, horrible things happen. If a user uses a local eclass to override one in portage

Re: [gentoo-dev] perl eclass review - EAPI=3 + new helper eclass

2010-04-16 Thread Steev Klimaszewski
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Ciaran McCreesh ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote: On Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:23:48 -0400 James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com wrote: OK.  Let me rephrase.  Portage does not need to validate local changes. Sure it does. If it doesn't, and your local changes affect