| 1 |
come to think of it, I thought it was all python as well.... |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
anybody know why we thought this? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> -----Original Message----- |
| 6 |
> From: Brian Friday [mailto:bfriday@××××××××.edu] |
| 7 |
> Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 3:21 PM |
| 8 |
> To: gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 9 |
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] portage database management |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> <quote who="Alain Penders"> |
| 14 |
> > Looking at the cheer size of Ant -- all the stuff they had |
| 15 |
> to put in |
| 16 |
> > before it became a really useful system, I'd vote against |
| 17 |
> trying to do |
| 18 |
> > this for portage. Having an XML definition for each |
| 19 |
> package, yes... |
| 20 |
> > replacing the actual build code by XML - no. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> I agree as well, the example I gave earlier of a possible XML |
| 23 |
> package file was based on my incorrect assumption portage |
| 24 |
> was python and not bash based. Not sure why I got that |
| 25 |
> impression, especially as I realize all the conf files have |
| 26 |
> bash syntax... |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> My general thought was this: Craft a XML file which clearly |
| 29 |
> identifies the sections of the current ebuild system. Once |
| 30 |
> this is done (again I was thinking of python or perl here not |
| 31 |
> bash) create a wrapper which acts as a transition layer |
| 32 |
> between portage and the new package XML file. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Clearly though I don't know enough about portage so please |
| 35 |
> forgive my past/current ignorance as I go back and read the manual. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> -- |
| 38 |
> Brian |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> -- |
| 43 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
-- |
| 48 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives