| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Chris White wrote: |
| 5 |
~ > Well, I do indeed see that as a valid argument, but at the same time, |
| 6 |
| something like this may take a bit shorter time as far as implementation |
| 7 |
| than getting the works of a new portage API. In fact, even if we did |
| 8 |
| get a portage API, I still think that parsing could extend the |
| 9 |
| flexibility of portage as you have you seen. On another point, I would |
| 10 |
| assume (correct me if I'm wrong), that the portage API would be python |
| 11 |
| based. For those who don't want to use python, you can still add |
| 12 |
| functionality (this was written in perl) that you desire. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Indeed, it is a nice tool to have while we wait for the API, I should |
| 15 |
have made this clear in my first post, sorry :) |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
As for using other languages, once the API is in place it would then be |
| 18 |
possible to create bindings for those languages. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
BTW, no need to send to robin.g.o and lists.g.o anymore, either will do. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Regards, |
| 23 |
Ian Leitch |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iD8DBQFCKKBCefZ4eWAXRGIRAl4kAJ0U5akp5ksMD30nOllbvF9uRxJfxACfSXL1 |
| 29 |
ykRWHqesC3oxtietmNOjDI4= |
| 30 |
=BIVn |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives