| 1 |
<quote who="Alain Penders"> |
| 2 |
> Looking at the cheer size of Ant -- all the stuff they had to put in |
| 3 |
> before it became a really useful system, I'd vote against trying to do |
| 4 |
> this for portage. Having an XML definition for each package, yes... |
| 5 |
> replacing the actual build code by XML - no. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I agree as well, the example I gave earlier of a possible XML package file |
| 8 |
was based on my incorrect assumption portage was python and not bash |
| 9 |
based. Not sure why I got that impression, especially as I realize all the |
| 10 |
conf files have bash syntax... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
My general thought was this: Craft a XML file which clearly identifies the |
| 13 |
sections of the current ebuild system. Once this is done (again I was |
| 14 |
thinking of python or perl here not bash) create a wrapper which acts as a |
| 15 |
transition layer between portage and the new package XML file. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Clearly though I don't know enough about portage so please forgive my |
| 18 |
past/current ignorance as I go back and read the manual. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
-- |
| 21 |
Brian |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives