1 |
<quote who="Alain Penders"> |
2 |
> Looking at the cheer size of Ant -- all the stuff they had to put in |
3 |
> before it became a really useful system, I'd vote against trying to do |
4 |
> this for portage. Having an XML definition for each package, yes... |
5 |
> replacing the actual build code by XML - no. |
6 |
|
7 |
I agree as well, the example I gave earlier of a possible XML package file |
8 |
was based on my incorrect assumption portage was python and not bash |
9 |
based. Not sure why I got that impression, especially as I realize all the |
10 |
conf files have bash syntax... |
11 |
|
12 |
My general thought was this: Craft a XML file which clearly identifies the |
13 |
sections of the current ebuild system. Once this is done (again I was |
14 |
thinking of python or perl here not bash) create a wrapper which acts as a |
15 |
transition layer between portage and the new package XML file. |
16 |
|
17 |
Clearly though I don't know enough about portage so please forgive my |
18 |
past/current ignorance as I go back and read the manual. |
19 |
|
20 |
-- |
21 |
Brian |
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
|
25 |
-- |
26 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |