qmail.eclass draft

Hi all,

due to massive code duplication in netqmail, qmail-ldap,
qmail-mysql,
mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for qmail i
have started
to move functionality into a first qmail.eclass draft.

It is basically netqmail split into much smaller chunks so
they can be
reused by other qmail variants as well. Additionally
configuration
files supplied by gentoo have been moved from $FILESDIR to a
seperate
tarball. [1]

Attached is the eclass and a sample how to use it with
netqmail.

Comments and suggestions are more than welcome!

Bene

[1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~hollow/genqmail-20070713.tar.bz2

On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm
wrote:
> due to massive code duplication in netqmail,
qmail-ldap, qmail-mysql,
> mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for qmail
i have started
> to move functionality into a first qmail.eclass draft.

I already proposed moving the prime functionality into an
eclass and it
was refused back then. qmail-mysql and qmail-ldap may get
removed soon.

And as the netqmail ebuild maintainer, I want the ebuild to
be as simple
as possible, that is, no external dependencies where
possible.

> Attached is the eclass and a sample how to use it with
netqmail.

It seems like you aren't interested in communication with
the
maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.

Greets,
Michael

-- 
http://hansmi.ch/
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

Michael Hanselmann napsal(a):
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt
Boehm wrote:
>> due to massive code duplication in netqmail,
qmail-ldap, qmail-mysql,
>> mini-qmail and other 3-rd party applications for
qmail i have started
>> to move functionality into a first qmail.eclass
draft.

> And as the netqmail ebuild maintainer, I want the
ebuild to be as simple
> as possible, that is, no external dependencies where
possible.

I wouldn't exactly call the current netqmail ebuild
'simple', on a quick
look. Hmmm... 

>> Attached is the eclass and a sample how to use it
with netqmail.
> 
> It seems like you aren't interested in communication
with the
> maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.

Erm? This was completely uncalled for, I'd say?!


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakubgentoo.org
 GPG signature:
 http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=g
et&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F
8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature   ;)

Michael Hanselmann kirjoitti:
> 
> It seems like you aren't interested in communication
with the
> maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.
> 

We are all required to subscribe to this mailing list...
Should be easy
enough to spot the thread.

Regards,
Petteri
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:53 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> Michael Hanselmann napsal(a):
> > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt
Boehm wrote:
>
> > It seems like you aren't interested in
communication with the
> > maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.
> 
> Erm? This was completely uncalled for, I'd say?!

Looking at traffic going both ways I don't think it was
meant harshly or
etc. More a surprise to the current maintainer. That they
weren't
contacted to get their feedback on something they are
directly
responsible for. Before going over their heads or around the
bush to get
opinions from others.

I don't think it was intentionally done. But usually, not
sure if it's
stated in policy, it's best to try to contact a maintainer
first,
directly. If one exists, if not the someone maintaining the
herd then.
Discussing and ideas, thoughts, issues, etc there. Then
based on that,
elevate the conversation to say -dev ml or etc for all to be
involved.

I am sure lots of us have lots of ideas about allot of
packages. But
only a few of us take enough time to commit to being a
packages
maintainer. Those willing to put their neck on the line
should be the
first stop, IMHO.

Simple misunderstanding miss-communication. 

-- 
William L. Thomson Jr.
Gentoo/Java

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 14:34:26 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <hansmigentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200, Benedikt
Boehm wrote:
> > due to massive code duplication in netqmail,
qmail-ldap,
> > qmail-mysql, mini-qmail and other 3-rd party
applications for qmail
> > i have started to move functionality into a first
qmail.eclass
> > draft.
> 
> I already proposed moving the prime functionality into
an eclass and
> it was refused back then. qmail-mysql and qmail-ldap
may get removed
> soon.

qmail-ldap will not be removed for sure, since i maintain it
currently.

> 
> And as the netqmail ebuild maintainer, I want the
ebuild to be as
> simple as possible, that is, no external dependencies
where possible.

so, you suggest it is a better way to duplicate tons of code
in 4
ebuilds?

> 
> > Attached is the eclass and a sample how to use it
with netqmail.
> 
> It seems like you aren't interested in communication
with the
> maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.

appearantly, you are subscribed to gentoo-dev.

> 
> Greets,
> Michael
> 

On a sidenote, qmail has a huge amount of open bugs, and has
generally
gotten no love in the past time, so i wonder if it actually
was/is
maintained.
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Fri, 13 Jul 2007 11:22:47 -0400
"William L. Thomson Jr." <wltjrgentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 14:53 +0200, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > Michael Hanselmann napsal(a):
> > > On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 01:37:11PM +0200,
Benedikt Boehm wrote:
> >
> > > It seems like you aren't interested in
communication with the
> > > maintainer, otherwise you would've CC'ed me.
> > 
> > Erm? This was completely uncalled for, I'd say?!
> 
> Looking at traffic going both ways I don't think it was
meant harshly
> or etc. More a surprise to the current maintainer. That
they weren't
> contacted to get their feedback on something they are
directly
> responsible for. Before going over their heads or
around the bush to
> get opinions from others.

Actually i am qmail maintainer and also been in the qmail
herd for
quite some time...

> 
> I don't think it was intentionally done. But usually,
not sure if it's
> stated in policy, it's best to try to contact a
maintainer first,
> directly. If one exists, if not the someone maintaining
the herd then.
> Discussing and ideas, thoughts, issues, etc there. Then
based on that,
> elevate the conversation to say -dev ml or etc for all
to be involved.
> 
> I am sure lots of us have lots of ideas about allot of
packages. But
> only a few of us take enough time to commit to being a
packages
> maintainer. Those willing to put their neck on the line
should be the
> first stop, IMHO.
> 
> Simple misunderstanding miss-communication. 
> 
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

ON FRI, JUL 13, 2007 AT 05:37:16PM +0300, PETTERI RδTY
WROTE:
> WE ARE ALL REQUIRED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THIS MAILING
LIST... SHOULD BE EASY
> ENOUGH TO SPOT THE THREAD.

YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES I GET TIRED OF ALL THE FLAMES AND
POINTLESS
DISCUSSIONS AND MARK ALL MAILS AS READ. IF SOMETHING SHOULD
BE READ BY A
CERTAIN PERSON, IT'S USUALLY BETTER TO SEND IT TO THE LIST
*AND* CC THE
PERSON IN QUESTION.

GREETS,
MICHAEL

-- 
HTTP://HANSMI.CH/

On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:05:51PM +0200, Benedikt Boehm
wrote:
> Actually i am qmail maintainer and also been in the
qmail herd for
> quite some time...

No, actually you're in the qmail herd and maintainer of the
net-mail/qmail-ldap package. This doesn't make you a
netqmail (the
package I care about) maintainer.

Greets,
Michael

-- 
http://hansmi.ch/

ON FRI, JUL 13, 2007 AT 03:04:27PM +0200, BENEDIKT BOEHM
WROTE:
> QMAIL-LDAP WILL NOT BE REMOVED FOR SURE, SINCE I
MAINTAIN IT CURRENTLY.

OKAY, MY STATUS THERE WAS OUTDATED. WE WERE AT LEAST
DISCUSSING IT AT
SOME POINT IN HISTORY.

> > AND AS THE NETQMAIL EBUILD MAINTAINER, I WANT THE
EBUILD TO BE AS
> > SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE, THAT IS, NO EXTERNAL
DEPENDENCIES WHERE POSSIBLE.

> SO, YOU SUGGEST IT IS A BETTER WAY TO DUPLICATE TONS OF
CODE IN 4
> EBUILDS?

I'LL THINK ABOUT IT.

> APPEARANTLY, YOU ARE SUBSCRIBED TO GENTOO-DEV.

€¦ WHICH DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN I READ IT.

> ON A SIDENOTE, QMAIL HAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF OPEN BUGS,
AND HAS GENERALLY
> GOTTEN NO LOVE IN THE PAST TIME, SO I WONDER IF IT
ACTUALLY WAS/IS
> MAINTAINED.

QMAIL != NETQMAIL. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE HAVE ONLY ONE
OUTSTANDING BUG
THERE, THE ONE WITH MAN PAGES COLLIDING, NOTHING CRITICAL.
SINCE I ALSO
HAVE OTHER THINGS IN LIFE WITH HIGHER PRIORITIES THAN
GENTOO, IT HAS TO
WAIT. HOWEVER, I SHOULD GET TO IT DURING THE WEEK OR AT
LATEST TWO
WEEKS.

GREETS,
MICHAEL

-- 
HTTP://HANSMI.CH/

ON FRI, JUL 13, 2007 AT 11:22:47AM -0400, WILLIAM L. THOMSON
JR. WROTE:
> > > IT SEEMS LIKE YOU AREN'T INTERESTED IN
COMMUNICATION WITH THE
> > > MAINTAINER, OTHERWISE YOU WOULD'VE CC'ED ME.

> > ERM? THIS WAS COMPLETELY UNCALLED FOR, I'D SAY?!

TO JAKUB: IT WAS. SENDING SUCH THINGS TO A PUBLIC LIST IS
FINE, AS LONG
AS THE AFFECTED PERSONS GET INFORMED, TOO. OTHERWISE IT CAN
BE SEEN LIKE
A COMPLAINT BEHIND SOMEONE'S BACK. I'M SURE YOU'VE
EXPERIENCE WITH THAT,
DO YOU?

> LOOKING AT TRAFFIC GOING BOTH WAYS I DON'T THINK IT WAS
MEANT HARSHLY OR
> ETC. MORE A SURPRISE TO THE CURRENT MAINTAINER.

INDEED IT WAS SURPRISING. €œWHO IS HE TO COME AROUND WITH
SUCH A THING ON
A PUBLIC LIST, WITHOUT CC'ING ME?€

> BUT USUALLY, NOT SURE IF IT'S STATED IN POLICY, IT'S
BEST TO TRY TO
> CONTACT A MAINTAINER FIRST, DIRECTLY.

SUCH A THING WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE IN POLICY. IT'S JUST
COMMON SENSE.

ANYWAY, LET'S END IT HERE AND GET BACK TO TECHNICAL STUFF.

GREETS,
MICHAEL

-- 
HTTP://HANSMI.CH/

On Sat, 14 Jul 2007 23:02:00 +0200
Michael Hanselmann <hansmigentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 03:04:27PM +0200, Benedikt
Boehm wrote:
> > qmail-ldap will not be removed for sure, since i
maintain it
> > currently.
> 
> Okay, my status there was outdated. We were at least
discussing it at
> some point in history.
> 
> > > And as the netqmail ebuild maintainer, I want
the ebuild to be as
> > > simple as possible, that is, no external
dependencies where
> > > possible.
> 
> > so, you suggest it is a better way to duplicate
tons of code in 4
> > ebuilds?
> 
> I'll think about it.
> 
> [...]
>
> > On a sidenote, qmail has a huge amount of open
bugs, and has
> > generally gotten no love in the past time, so i
wonder if it
> > actually was/is maintained.
> 
> qmail != netqmail. To my knowledge, we have only one
outstanding bug
> there, the one with man pages colliding, nothing
critical. Since I
> also have other things in life with higher priorities
than Gentoo, it
> has to wait. However, I should get to it during the
week or at latest
> two weeks.

As it seems, you do not have the time and/or interest to
cleanup the
qmail mess, but don't want anyone to touch (net)qmail
ebuilds either, i
have put the updated ebuilds for qmail and friends into my
overlay. [1]

Maybe we can get them into the tree some time in the
future.

Bene

[1]
http://planet.gentoo.org/develop
ers/hollow/2007/07/15/experimental_qmail_ebuilds
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

ON SUN, JUL 15, 2007 AT 03:07:28AM +0200, BENEDIKT BOEHM
WROTE:
> AS IT SEEMS, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TIME AND/OR INTEREST
TO CLEANUP THE
> QMAIL MESS, BUT DON'T WANT ANYONE TO TOUCH (NET)QMAIL
EBUILDS EITHER, I
> HAVE PUT THE UPDATED EBUILDS FOR QMAIL AND FRIENDS INTO
MY OVERLAY. [1]

YOU INTERPRET SOMETHING INTO IT WHICH ISN'T TRUE. I'M NOT
€œHOLDING€ IT.
PUBLISHING SUCH UNVERIFIED INTERPRETATIONS PUBLICALLY ISN'T
EXACTLY
NICE, TOO. IT'S JUST THAT I DON'T HAVE TIME TODAY OR
TOMORROW TO LOOK
MORE EXACTLY INTO IT, OR, MORE EXACTLY, I HAVE THINGS WITH
HIGHER
PRIORITIES TO BE DONE FIRST (BUT ALSO FREE SOFTWARE
RELATED!). AND AS
THE CURRENT MAINTAINER I JUST SAID €œNO€ TO YOUR CODE (FOR
NOW). THERE'S
NOTHING WRONG WITH DOING THAT IF I'M NOT ACCEPTING IT (DUE
TO WHATEVER
REASON). YOU DIDN'T ASK TO TAKE OVER MAINTAINERSHIP.

DOING A CHANGE LIKE THIS TO AN EBUILD HAS TO BE WELL
THOUGHT, REVIEWED
AND CAN'T BE DONE WITHING HOURS. NETQMAIL IS RATHER FRAGILE
TO BREAKAGE
AND WE DON'T WANT OUR USERS TO LOOSE E-MAILS DUE TO OUR
FAILURES, DO WE?

NOW, YOU SHOULD CORRECT THAT BLOG ENTRY (I'M NOT GOING INTO
WHY MOVING
TOPICS FROM MLS TO BLOGS IS VERY BAD) TO ACTUALLY STATE TRUE
FACTS AND
THEN WAIT A FEW DAYS. I'LL HAVE SOME TIME DURING THIS WEEK.

GREETS,
MICHAEL

-- 
HTTP://HANSMI.CH/

ON SUN, 15 JUL 2007 13:19:08 +0200
MICHAEL HANSELMANN <HANSMIGENTOO.ORG> WROTE:

> ON SUN, JUL 15, 2007 AT 03:07:28AM +0200, BENEDIKT
BOEHM WROTE:
> > AS IT SEEMS, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE TIME AND/OR
INTEREST TO CLEANUP THE
> > QMAIL MESS, BUT DON'T WANT ANYONE TO TOUCH
(NET)QMAIL EBUILDS
> > EITHER, I HAVE PUT THE UPDATED EBUILDS FOR QMAIL
AND FRIENDS INTO
> > MY OVERLAY. [1]
> 
> YOU INTERPRET SOMETHING INTO IT WHICH ISN'T TRUE. I'M
NOT €œHOLDING€
> IT. PUBLISHING SUCH UNVERIFIED INTERPRETATIONS
PUBLICALLY ISN'T
> EXACTLY NICE, TOO. IT'S JUST THAT I DON'T HAVE TIME
TODAY OR TOMORROW
> TO LOOK MORE EXACTLY INTO IT, OR, MORE EXACTLY, I HAVE
THINGS WITH
> HIGHER PRIORITIES TO BE DONE FIRST (BUT ALSO FREE
SOFTWARE RELATED!).
> AND AS THE CURRENT MAINTAINER I JUST SAID €œNO€ TO
YOUR CODE (FOR
> NOW). THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH DOING THAT IF I'M NOT
ACCEPTING IT
> (DUE TO WHATEVER REASON). YOU DIDN'T ASK TO TAKE OVER
MAINTAINERSHIP.

IN FACT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THAT NICE EITHER, BUT HONESTLY I
DON'T CARE.
THEREFORE I HAVE JUST MOVED THE EBUILDS TO MY OVERLAY UNTIL
YOU CAN
REVIEW THEM ...

> DOING A CHANGE LIKE THIS TO AN EBUILD HAS TO BE WELL
THOUGHT, REVIEWED
> AND CAN'T BE DONE WITHING HOURS. NETQMAIL IS RATHER
FRAGILE TO
> BREAKAGE AND WE DON'T WANT OUR USERS TO LOOSE E-MAILS
DUE TO OUR
> FAILURES, DO WE?

... SO THAT IT CAN BE TESTED BY THOSE WHO FEEL LIKE.

> NOW, YOU SHOULD CORRECT THAT BLOG ENTRY (I'M NOT GOING
INTO WHY MOVING
> TOPICS FROM MLS TO BLOGS IS VERY BAD) TO ACTUALLY STATE
TRUE FACTS AND
> THEN WAIT A FEW DAYS. I'LL HAVE SOME TIME DURING THIS
WEEK.
> 
> GREETS,
> MICHAEL
> 
--
GENTOO-DEVGENTOO.ORG MAILING LIST

HELLO BENEDIKT

ON FRI, JUL 13, 2007 AT 01:37:11PM +0200, BENEDIKT BOEHM
WROTE:
> IT IS BASICALLY NETQMAIL SPLIT INTO MUCH SMALLER CHUNKS
SO THEY CAN BE
> REUSED BY OTHER QMAIL VARIANTS AS WELL.

OKAY, I LOOKED THROUGH IT AND FOUND SOME THINGS WHICH NEED
RECONSIDERATION. I AGREE THAT USER CREATION AND SUCH THINGS
CAN BE
EASILY DONE IN AN ECLASS. HOWEVER, FUNCTIONS LIKE
QMAIL_SRC_UNPACK
SHOULD BE DONE IN THE EBUILD. PUTTING THEM IN AN ECLASS AND
JUST DOING
"IF (A) { €¦ } ELSE IF (B) { €¦ }" MAKES IT HARDER
TO UNDERSTAND AND
UNNECCESSARILY COMPLICATED. QMAIL_BASE_INSTALL SHOULD BE
SPLIT IN
SMALLER FUNCTIONS, MAYBE WITH CALLBACKS (IF POSSIBLE IN
BASH). IN THE
END THE EBUILD SHOULDN'T CONTAIN ANY PACKAGE-SPECIFIC CODE.
CAN YOU LOOK
INTO IT AGAIN?

GREETS,
MICHAEL

-- 
HTTP://HANSMI.CH/

ON FRI, 20 JUL 2007 11:52:02 +0200
MICHAEL HANSELMANN <HANSMIGENTOO.ORG> WROTE:

> HELLO BENEDIKT
> 
> ON FRI, JUL 13, 2007 AT 01:37:11PM +0200, BENEDIKT
BOEHM WROTE:
> > IT IS BASICALLY NETQMAIL SPLIT INTO MUCH SMALLER
CHUNKS SO THEY CAN
> > BE REUSED BY OTHER QMAIL VARIANTS AS WELL.
> 
> OKAY, I LOOKED THROUGH IT AND FOUND SOME THINGS WHICH
NEED
> RECONSIDERATION. I AGREE THAT USER CREATION AND SUCH
THINGS CAN BE
> EASILY DONE IN AN ECLASS. HOWEVER, FUNCTIONS LIKE
QMAIL_SRC_UNPACK
> SHOULD BE DONE IN THE EBUILD. PUTTING THEM IN AN ECLASS
AND JUST DOING
> "IF (A) { €¦ } ELSE IF (B) { €¦ }" MAKES IT
HARDER TO UNDERSTAND AND
> UNNECCESSARILY COMPLICATED.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE HERE, IT IS JUST TOO UGLY.

> QMAIL_BASE_INSTALL SHOULD BE SPLIT IN
> SMALLER FUNCTIONS, MAYBE WITH CALLBACKS (IF POSSIBLE IN
BASH).

THERE IS NOW QMAIL_MINI_INSTALL (CALLED BY EVERY QMAIL
EBUILD) AND
QMAIL_{FULL,MAN,SENDMAIL}_INSTALL FOR THE REST OF A FULL
BLOWN INSTALL.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN WITH "CALLBACKS" HERE,
MAYBE YOU CAN
ELABORATE?

> IN THE
> END THE EBUILD SHOULDN'T CONTAIN ANY PACKAGE-SPECIFIC
CODE. CAN YOU
> LOOK INTO IT AGAIN?

THE QMAIL_*_INSTALL CHANGES ARE ALREADY IN MY OVERLAY, I
WILL LOOK INTO
REMOVING THE UNPACK STUFF FROM THE ECLASS TOGETHER WITH
SOME
DEPEND/IUSE CLEANUPS TO GET RID OF QMAIL_MINI() TOMORROW.

HTH,
BENE
--
GENTOO-DEVGENTOO.ORG MAILING LIST

ON FRI, JUL 20, 2007 AT 10:05:23PM +0200, BENEDIKT BOEHM
WROTE:
> > QMAIL_BASE_INSTALL SHOULD BE SPLIT IN SMALLER
FUNCTIONS, MAYBE WITH
> > CALLBACKS (IF POSSIBLE IN BASH).

> THERE IS NOW QMAIL_MINI_INSTALL (CALLED BY EVERY QMAIL
EBUILD) AND
> QMAIL_{FULL,MAN,SENDMAIL}_INSTALL FOR THE REST OF A
FULL BLOWN INSTALL.

> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN WITH "CALLBACKS"
HERE, MAYBE YOU CAN
> ELABORATE?

IF WE HAVE A COMMON PART WHICH CANNOT, DUE TO WHATEVER
REASON, BE SPLIT
INTO SEVERAL FUNCTIONS, BUT WE'VE TO DO SOMETHING PACKAGE
SPECIFIC IN
BETWEEN, WE NEED CALLBACKS. JUST A SAMPLE (MIGHT NOT WORK AT
ALL, I'M
NOT THAT MUCH INTO ECLASSES):

FOO.ECLASS:
FOO_SRC_INSTALL() {
    # SOME PREFIX CODE
    # €¦

    PACKAGE_SPECIFIC_CODE

    # SOME POSTFIX CODE
    # €¦
}

FOO-SIMPLE.EBUILD:
SRC_INSTALL() 
PACKAGE_SPECIFIC_CODE() {
    # CODE FOR FOO-SIMPLE
}

FOO-ADV.EBUILD:
SRC_INSTALL() 
PACKAGE_SPECIFIC_CODE() {
    # CODE FOR FOO-ADV
}

> THE QMAIL_*_INSTALL CHANGES ARE ALREADY IN MY OVERLAY,

HOW CAN I GET IT USING SVN? LOOKING AT THE SITE FOR MORE
THAN A MINUTE
SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO FIND IT.

BTW.: YOU DIDN'T CORRECT YOUR BLOG POSTING TO SHOW THE
ACTUAL FACTS.

THANKS,
MICHAEL

-- 
HTTP://HANSMI.CH/

ON FRI, 20 JUL 2007 23:17:46 +0200
MICHAEL HANSELMANN <HANSMIGENTOO.ORG> WROTE:

> ON FRI, JUL 20, 2007 AT 10:05:23PM +0200, BENEDIKT
BOEHM WROTE:
> > > QMAIL_BASE_INSTALL SHOULD BE SPLIT IN SMALLER
FUNCTIONS, MAYBE
> > > WITH CALLBACKS (IF POSSIBLE IN BASH).
> 
> > THERE IS NOW QMAIL_MINI_INSTALL (CALLED BY EVERY
QMAIL EBUILD) AND
> > QMAIL_{FULL,MAN,SENDMAIL}_INSTALL FOR THE REST OF
A FULL BLOWN
> > INSTALL.
> 
> > I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN WITH
"CALLBACKS" HERE, MAYBE YOU CAN
> > ELABORATE?
> 
> IF WE HAVE A COMMON PART WHICH CANNOT, DUE TO WHATEVER
REASON, BE
> SPLIT INTO SEVERAL FUNCTIONS, BUT WE'VE TO DO SOMETHING
PACKAGE
> SPECIFIC IN BETWEEN, WE NEED CALLBACKS. JUST A SAMPLE
(MIGHT NOT WORK
> AT ALL, I'M NOT THAT MUCH INTO ECLASSES):
> 
> FOO.ECLASS:
> FOO_SRC_INSTALL() {
>     # SOME PREFIX CODE
>     # €¦
> 
>     PACKAGE_SPECIFIC_CODE
> 
>     # SOME POSTFIX CODE
>     # €¦
> }
> 
> FOO-SIMPLE.EBUILD:
> SRC_INSTALL() 
> PACKAGE_SPECIFIC_CODE() {
>     # CODE FOR FOO-SIMPLE
> }
> 
> FOO-ADV.EBUILD:
> SRC_INSTALL() 
> PACKAGE_SPECIFIC_CODE() {
>     # CODE FOR FOO-ADV
> }

I GUESS THIS COULD BE DONE WITH SOME "EVAL" FOO...
GOING TO RUN SOME
TESTS THE NEXT DAYS

> 
> > THE QMAIL_*_INSTALL CHANGES ARE ALREADY IN MY
OVERLAY,
> 
> HOW CAN I GET IT USING SVN? LOOKING AT THE SITE FOR
MORE THAN A MINUTE
> SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED TO FIND IT.

SVN CO HTTP://OVERLAYS.GENTOO.ORG/SVN/DEV/HOLLOW

> 
> BTW.: YOU DIDN'T CORRECT YOUR BLOG POSTING TO SHOW THE
ACTUAL FACTS.
> 
> THANKS,
> MICHAEL
> 
--
GENTOO-DEVGENTOO.ORG MAILING LIST

ON FRI, 20 JUL 2007 11:52:02 +0200
MICHAEL HANSELMANN <HANSMIGENTOO.ORG> WROTE:

> HELLO BENEDIKT
> 
> ON FRI, JUL 13, 2007 AT 01:37:11PM +0200, BENEDIKT
BOEHM WROTE:
> > IT IS BASICALLY NETQMAIL SPLIT INTO MUCH SMALLER
CHUNKS SO THEY CAN
> > BE REUSED BY OTHER QMAIL VARIANTS AS WELL.
> 
> OKAY, I LOOKED THROUGH IT AND FOUND SOME THINGS WHICH
NEED
> RECONSIDERATION. I AGREE THAT USER CREATION AND SUCH
THINGS CAN BE
> EASILY DONE IN AN ECLASS. HOWEVER, FUNCTIONS LIKE
QMAIL_SRC_UNPACK
> SHOULD BE DONE IN THE EBUILD. PUTTING THEM IN AN ECLASS
AND JUST DOING
> "IF (A) { €¦ } ELSE IF (B) { €¦ }" MAKES IT
HARDER TO UNDERSTAND AND
> UNNECCESSARILY COMPLICATED.

I THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, BUT I'D REALLY LIKE TO SEE THINGS LIKE
QMAIL-SPP
AND THE GENTOO QMAIL TARBALL BE HANDLED BY THE ECLASS, ON
THE OTHER
HAND I AGREE THAT UNPACKING NETQMAIL OR QMAIL BASED ON $FOO
IS NOT THE
BEST IDEA. ANY SUGGESTIONS?

> 
> GREETS,
> MICHAEL
> 

BENE
--
GENTOO-DEVGENTOO.ORG MAILING LIST

On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 21:55:16 +0200
Benedikt Boehm <hollowgentoo.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 23:17:46 +0200
> Michael Hanselmann <hansmigentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:05:23PM +0200, Benedikt
Boehm wrote:
> > > > qmail_base_install should be split in
smaller functions, maybe
> > > > with callbacks (if possible in bash).
> > 
[...]
> > 
> > > I'm not sure what you mean with
"callbacks" here, maybe you can
> > > elaborate?
> > 
> > If we have a common part which cannot, due to
whatever reason, be
> > split into several functions, but we've to do
something package
> > specific in between, we need callbacks. Just a
sample (might not
> > work at all, I'm not that much into eclasses):
> > 
[...]
> 
> i guess this could be done with some "eval"
foo... going to run some
> tests the next days
> 

I figured that we can simply use declare to check if a
function exists,
so i implemented hooks for all install functions and
provided a
combined qmail_src_install that calls all install
functions.

I also moved the unpack stuff back into the ebuilds, only
genqmail
and qmail-spp remain with a little unpack function in the
eclass...

Bene
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list