Gentoo Archives: gnap-dev

From: "josé Alberto Suárez López" <bass@g.o>
To: gnap-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gnap-dev] Some patches for gnap
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 07:13:31
Message-Id: 1183965200.16340.8.camel@supercoco
In Reply to: Re: [gnap-dev] Some patches for gnap by Philipp Riegger
El vie, 06-07-2007 a las 18:08 +0300, Philipp Riegger escribió:
> josé Alberto Suárez López wrote: > > > kingtaco told me infra have the new machine, so i hope to have our new > > home soon, so all of us can use the repo to work together and fast. > > Nice. With this change, are you also switching to svn or soemthing like > that or changing the gnap repository layout? Making a difference between > gnap_make and the other scripts seems rather artificial, since they are > sharing code now.
we will change to svn, the layout is not determined yet, Who want to be the first to propose the layout? :)
> >> Note: > >> 1) There are 2 gnap_shared.sh so far, one in the src and one in the toos > >> directory of the gnap svn tree. This should maybe be changed... > > > > shoudl be > > Where do you want to have it?
as you own :) [...]
> > i like the idea, work on it and tell me. I prefer as less config files > > to edit better. > > The easiest way to implement this would be: > > We use ${:-} or ${:=} (i have to understand the difference between them) > for default parameters, parse the command line for the first time only > extracting parameters concerning external config files or -h, parse theese > config files (we have them or default config files), order will be > common.conf and then catalyst.conf (so common.conf can overwrite the > variable saying where to find catalyst.conf), we parse the command line > options again and use all the info given there to set/overwrite variables. > > Advantages: > - No additional variables needed > - Quite easy change > - Should give us what we want > - No need for a config file parser > > Disadvantages: > - Well... common.conf and catalyst.conf can overwrite lots of things, we > never check which config file is allowed to overwrite what. But if > somebody does strange things there, it's not our fault, i think
seem well to me, who thinks the other zombies in the list? [...]
> >> 3) gnap_make feature: improved overlay handling > > [...] > > > To improve is ever good :) > > An alternative would be to introduce overlay handling to catalyst, but i > think, we don't want that. :-)
sure :P
> >> 4) some small stuff > >> > >> At the moment, if there is a choice (Overwrite/Append, Yes/No) only one > >> possibility is checked and the other is assumed, if the one is not > >> given. > >> I'd like to change this to something like "It is asked in a loop until a > >> valid option is given."
ok, is not a major change
> >> There is a function gwarn, writes to stderr. It is used in some places > >> where ginfo would make more sence, if it would exist. I'd like to > >> implement and use this. > > > > for example? > > gwarn 'The following targets will be called:' > gwarn "${TARGETLIST}"
ok implement ginfo.
> >> That's all i wanted to say about the gnap_scripts at the moment. > > > > you say a lot :) > > Hmm... is that good or bad? :)
good :P
> > > nice job > > Thanks, unfortunately not what i applied for. :-( > > See you, > Philipp
-- gnap-dev@g.o mailing list