Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving functionality out of portage and into the tree
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 16:15:50
Message-Id: 200407301215.52512.vapier@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving functionality out of portage and into the tree by Jason Stubbs
1 On Friday 30 July 2004 11:15 am, Jason Stubbs wrote:
2 > I assumed that, with the moving of most of bin/*, everything would go into
3 > one (or more) eclass(es). At least, that seems the most convenient way to
4 > me. Do you have a fairly clear view in mind of exactly what would stay and
5 > what would be moved yet?
6
7 i can think of a good and a bad reason for keeping these definitions in a bash
8 script ...
9 good: we can stick 'die' in some of the core functions (epatch)
10 bad: we cant run the functions through another binary (like env)
11
12 i dont think the bad has caused much issues before so i'd like to keep the
13 behavior that things (like epatch) have
14 -mike
15
16 --
17 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies