1 |
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@×××××××××××××.edu> wrote: |
2 |
> To make XML a viable substitute for bash, you will need to implement a |
3 |
> turing complete language in XML, which should probably preclude its use |
4 |
> in ebuilds. You would likely have better luck with a functional |
5 |
> programming language, although you are more than welcome to demonstrate |
6 |
> otherwise. |
7 |
|
8 |
Well, a trivial solution to that is to embed bash code (or some other |
9 |
language) into the content of the xml file. As I and others posted |
10 |
earlier the advantage is that it makes all the key/value stuff easier |
11 |
to manage than doing it in bash, but it makes editing the scripting |
12 |
content harder and requires pre-processing before being fed into an |
13 |
interpreter. |
14 |
|
15 |
If you look at metadata.xml you could argue that we're already using |
16 |
xml-based ebuilds to an extent, but we split the metadata across two |
17 |
different files in different formats and call them different things. |
18 |
|
19 |
In any case, my point in bringing up xml was that the whole point of |
20 |
GLEP 55 was to future-proof the interpretation of ebuild files, and |
21 |
xml is just one example of what the future could conceivably look |
22 |
like. |
23 |
|
24 |
Rich |