| 1 |
Richard Fish posted |
| 2 |
<7573e9640604301028k6e46acd0tc73cde05e0aaf183@××××××××××.com>, excerpted |
| 3 |
below, on Sun, 30 Apr 2006 10:28:23 -0700: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> What would be the difference between having a script to create an |
| 6 |
> ebuild, vs a simple template ebuild to start from? The |
| 7 |
> /usr/portage/skel.ebuild is all of 17 lines when you ignore comments |
| 8 |
> and blank lines. And most of that are package settings for |
| 9 |
> dependancies and source locations and the like. Any script that was |
| 10 |
> created would have to prompt you for all of that stuff, so running the |
| 11 |
> script would be just as 'difficult' as copying and modifying the |
| 12 |
> template. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
A script that prompted for all that and used the answers to write a simple |
| 15 |
ebuild wouldn't be so bad. However, it would actually be /more/ work than |
| 16 |
simply compiling and installing from tarball, so if the object was a quick |
| 17 |
install of the package, it wouldn't be worth it. OTOH, a simple ebuild |
| 18 |
generation "wizard" script/applet might be worthwhile in its own right. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 22 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 23 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman in |
| 24 |
http://www.linuxdevcenter.com/pub/a/linux/2004/12/22/rms_interview.html |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives