[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The package/inherit trap
From: |
Maxim Cournoyer |
Subject: |
Re: The package/inherit trap |
Date: |
Fri, 03 Mar 2023 22:44:26 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) |
Hi,
Tobias Geerinckx-Rice <me@tobias.gr> writes:
> Hi!
>
> Maxim Cournoyer 写道:
>> Simon Tournier <zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> writes:
>>> It is not clear for me why you choose one over the other. From my
>>> current understanding, I would be tempted to always use
>>> 'package/inherit' and never plain 'inherit'.
>>
>> I also got confused by that in the past;
>
> Same. I think it's a rite of passage. A questionable one.
>
>> The way I process it internally now is this:
>>
>> If the inheritance is for *same-source/same-version* variants of a
>> package, they should use package/inherit, as any security issues
>> found
>> in the parent package should also be applied to that package (since
>> they
>> use the same source). Otherwise, plain 'inherit' should be used
>> (e.g. for newer version variants).
>
> That about jives with my intuition.
>
> Judging by the (IMO) universal confusion this causes, it is (IMO)
> spectacularly poorly-named. A docstring doesn't fix that.
>
> Could we rename it to something like ‘package+replacements/inherit’?
> To me, that captures the spirit, without being overly longer.
That'd be better, I think. The more verbose name at least wouldn't let
one think, 'oh, some questionable syntax sugar for the lazy', like I did
in the past :-).
--
Thanks,
Maxim