| 1 |
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 21:56:16 -0500 |
| 2 |
Brian Jackson <brian@××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I know talking to myself this much in one day is bad, but I setup an rsync |
| 5 |
> server. It is at: |
| 6 |
> rsync://www.mdrx.com/portage-local |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> you can run the following to check it out: |
| 9 |
> rsync -rz rsync://www.mdrx.com/portage-local . |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Actually, more formal support for multiple sync sources would be *highly* |
| 12 |
cool & would really make portage a "meta-distribution". I could also see this |
| 13 |
being useful for officially supported builds, as this readily solves the "I |
| 14 |
never want to even sync anything X11" problem. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
On a (barely) related extensibility note, I've found it really hard to work on |
| 17 |
even short patches to portage/emerge. portage.py is almost 4600 lines, emerge |
| 18 |
is almost 1900. My point being that's a pretty good size for a single code unit |
| 19 |
in any language, but enormous for python. Try |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
find /usr/lib/python2.2/ -iname "*.py" |xargs wc -l |sort -n -r |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
and keep in mind that the standard modules have a lot more documentation. And |
| 24 |
to cut off the inevitable criticism of this metric, these modules do import each |
| 25 |
other & use C libs. That's my point. The lack of modularity & the presence of |
| 26 |
top-level code makes reuse really tough- I'd love to work on a GTK'd or web'd |
| 27 |
emerge or 30 other scripts, but everything's so intertwined that it's not |
| 28 |
feasible to reuse code. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
More user whining, I know. I don't quite know what I'm suggesting as a |
| 31 |
solution, short of offering to help. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
--Pete |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Peter Fein |
| 37 |
pfein@×××××.com |
| 38 |
773-575-0694 |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-- |
| 41 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives