On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 19:58:55 +0100 Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On czw, 2017-03-16 at 19:42 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:57:44 +0100 > > Ulrich Mueller <u...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 16 Mar 2017, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > > > Indeed, but that eclass fails to follow devmanual eclass 101 > > > > [1]: An eclass is a collection of code which can be used by > > > > more than one ebuild. > > > > > > Which is the case here: > > > > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.13.ebuild | 10 +--- > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.59-r7.ebuild | 11 +--- > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.61-r2.ebuild | 11 +--- > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.62-r1.ebuild | 11 +--- > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.63-r1.ebuild | 11 +--- > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.64.ebuild | 11 +--- > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.65-r1.ebuild | 11 +--- > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.67.ebuild | 11 +--- > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.68.ebuild | 11 +--- > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-2.69-r2.ebuild | 11 +--- > > > sys-devel/autoconf/autoconf-9999.ebuild | 15 ++--- > > > > > > You're trying to find loopholes in the wording here, aren't you ? :) > > > > > > > > While this eclass might be a good temporary solution, I find it > > > > a rather convincing argument for per-package eclasses :) > > > > > > Yes, if there was sufficient demand for such a feature, and it > > > would therefore reduce the number of global eclasses > > > significantly. IMHO it wouldn't be worth it for only a handful of > > > packages. > > > > > > What do you consider demand ? > > > > A handful of packages that have to write a hundred lines of > > boilerplate code to make it work isn't representative of any demand > > at all. I've already written in some bug some usecases I foresee > > for even a trivial 'include'. > > I would really appreciate if you stopped diverting this thread. If you > don't have anything to add regarding the patch in question, then > please hesitate from commenting. > > If you love eblits that much, then please take appropriate measures to > get them into the next EAPI. Because so far your non-productive > comments on any effort of cleaning this mess up reach the level of > pure trolling. > > I reiterate: Your level of agressivity on the matter has reached very high levels. Calling people names, putting yourself as the savior for all our sins and callings other's work a mess is really getting ridiculous. Take a break, forget about your deadline, relax, and maybe you'll see things get resolved by themselves without all the drama. You'll gain in both ways. As for your accusation of diverting the thread, I'm sorry but I thought new eclass reviews on -dev was also, and essentially, about ensuring the eclass is the proper solution to the problem it claims to solve. I guess next time I'll rather focus on missing '|| die' that can easily be fixed later.
