On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:40:58AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:32:20 -0500 Brian Harring <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Portage is considerably less work than the tree. Saving as much effort
> as possible from an ebuild perspective should be a major consideration,
> even if it makes the portage side more complicated. Think of how all
> the ebuild-related problems are going to be solved first. Don't leave
> it as an afterthought.
Round and round we go.
The ebuild related problems aren't going to be solved in portage till
someone has a general solution that can be pushed into
portage/ebuild.sh base template. That's something that requires
people diving in and screwing with it.
> | My point experimentation can start for addressing the issues you keep
> | pointing at still stands.
> The sensible place to start experimenting is by adapting existing
> ebuilds and tinkering with ebuild.sh, not by adding something which may
> or may not end up being relevant to portage proper.
Bluntly, what the hell do you think we're talking about here? In case
you haven't caught on, there *are* portage modifications that have to
go with it, meaning more then ebuild.sh.
Regardless, I'll backport haubi's patch to stable if anyone is after
screwing with it, unless michael's has a version that applies cleanly
to .53_rc4. Enough dancing, would rather hand it off to those who are
interested, and see what they come up with rather then fencing via
email (and accomplishing nothing).
Michael, got anything I can mold to .5*, or just backport the 2.1 mod?