1 |
At 2005-03-04 11:08 +0000 Ian Leitch Wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Sorry to spoil your post Chris, but I think this is just another |
4 |
> testimonial to how badly we all need that portage API (plus the portage |
5 |
> daemon for tools such as Porthole who currently also have to parse |
6 |
> emerge output). This is by no means the first attempt at parsing I've seen. |
7 |
|
8 |
Well, I do indeed see that as a valid argument, but at the same time, |
9 |
something like this may take a bit shorter time as far as implementation |
10 |
than getting the works of a new portage API. In fact, even if we did |
11 |
get a portage API, I still think that parsing could extend the |
12 |
flexibility of portage as you have you seen. On another point, I would |
13 |
assume (correct me if I'm wrong), that the portage API would be python |
14 |
based. For those who don't want to use python, you can still add |
15 |
functionality (this was written in perl) that you desire. |
16 |
|
17 |
> But hey, nice work in the absence of the API, it does look like the |
18 |
> script has uses. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Regards, |
21 |
> Ian Leitch |