| 1 |
/usr/portage/skel.ebuild - Thanks for the pointer. |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Steve Herber herber@×××××.com work: 206-221-7262 |
| 4 |
Security Engineer, UW Medicine, IT Services home: 425-454-2399 |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006, Richard Fish wrote: |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> On 4/29/06, Steve Herber <herber@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 9 |
>> > This simply couldn't be automated in a sane manner. There's too much |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Sane? A crude script that can create an ebuild with just |
| 12 |
>> the minimum fields may not work very often, but if it works |
| 13 |
>> for the package YOU want, then you have just saved YOUR time. |
| 14 |
>> If it partially works, then you are that much closer to testing |
| 15 |
>> the package. That extra time could then be used to improve the |
| 16 |
>> ebuild and maybe get it working. That seems pretty sane to me. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> What would be the difference between having a script to create an |
| 19 |
> ebuild, vs a simple template ebuild to start from? The |
| 20 |
> /usr/portage/skel.ebuild is all of 17 lines when you ignore comments |
| 21 |
> and blank lines. And most of that are package settings for |
| 22 |
> dependancies and source locations and the like. Any script that was |
| 23 |
> created would have to prompt you for all of that stuff, so running the |
| 24 |
> script would be just as 'difficult' as copying and modifying the |
| 25 |
> template. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -Richard |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> -- |
| 30 |
> gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives