| 1 |
On Tuesday 31 August 2004 06:26 pm, Antst GD wrote: |
| 2 |
> For the moment both solutions looks ugly for me. At least I can't |
| 3 |
> imaging simple and easy-to-understand syntax for package.env, which will |
| 4 |
> look nice and will parce without problems. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> What do you think about? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
most of what you proposed seems excessive and confusing (and like you say, |
| 9 |
ugly) ... a cleaner/simpler solution can be taken from your work though i |
| 10 |
think ... |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
we have a directory: |
| 13 |
/etc/profile/packages.env/ |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
in this directory we have simple bash (bash because we can just source it and |
| 16 |
be done with it) files which line up in a similar fashion to the portage |
| 17 |
tree ... for example, if i want an env file for bash, i would have: |
| 18 |
/etc/profile/packages.env/app-shells/bash |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
i think this is about all we need ... and like Antst pointed out, this looks |
| 21 |
like it'd be real simple to implement ... |
| 22 |
-mike |
Archives