Petteri Räty wrote:

> Steve Long kirjoitti:
>>>
>> I don't see how it would wreak more havoc than a novice using, eg ANT
>> from Java which s/he is comfortable with, and then further having to
>> learn BASH peculiarities when things don't fit with the eclass. But yeah,
>> the fun is what attracts me to the idea more than anything.
>> 
> 
> Java needs to be compiled and ant is meant to be started from the
> command line. Of course you can invoke the main method from Java but
> what's the point? Developers have to be able to review ebuilds and
> having all those different languages would make the job harder and I
> don't really see benefits. If you need something bit more complex done
> in an ebuild, you can always use something like inline python.
> 
Yeah, sorry I haven't used Java seriously since 1.1 (apart from some MIDP
stuff) so haven't used ANT. I'm thinking more in terms of how Java was
touted as network code, similar to tcl (which is one scripted setup I would
be interested in.) So where you have a VM already instantiated, along with
whatever SecurityManager and so on, you have a framework for user, shared
or system installs, according to privilege level, with dependency
resolution handled by the package manager. (The dependencies don't have to
be confined to what the language knows about.)

You're right though, that's not of so much interest for stuff where you
already have ebuilds with associated shell infra, which you're used to
maintaining.

Thanks,
igli.


-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list