| 1 |
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 01:41:14PM +0100, Robert Moss wrote: |
| 2 |
> >Not being funny, but wouldn't it be so much easier and cleaner the way I |
| 3 |
> >described? |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> Oh, absolutely it would, but I don't understand why for a fairly simple |
| 6 |
> clean-up we should break everybody's scripts. That said, I'd be all for |
| 7 |
> having this show up in the portage-2.0.51 release as long as we let |
| 8 |
> people know about it beforehand (manpage, warning, whatever). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I don't really care if it waits for .51 or not, I'm using the |
| 11 |
prereleases of that anyway. I'd rather this wasn't sitting around for |
| 12 |
long though, its a small change. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Of course, the neat solution would be the API, because then you wouldn't |
| 15 |
> (shouldn't?) have to rely on text output... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
But there is no API that its sensible for me to use (thats not a dig at |
| 18 |
anyone). |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
The portageapi which Jason works on is shortly to be re-written. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
This is a nice simple change to emerge which will help scripting :) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
rob holland - [ tigger@g.o ] |
| 26 |
[ 5251 4FAC D684 8845 5604 E44F D65C 392F D91B 4729 ] |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives