| 1 |
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:40:20 +0000 |
| 2 |
Roy Marples <uberlord@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 07:12 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Except it won't, because ebuilds require bash regardless of which |
| 5 |
> > package manager is being used. If you want to change that you'll |
| 6 |
> > have to rewrite the entire tree. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Az once said near enough the same thing about baselayout. And that's |
| 9 |
> your view, your entitled to it, but it is not my view. Change a little |
| 10 |
> bit here, a little bit there. Slowly does it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
It's not a view. It's a simple fact. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Yes, I know that a fair chunk of the tree will need a re-write, just |
| 15 |
> in the same way that the init scripts got a re-write. It will take |
| 16 |
> time, it will not happen magically over night. To think overwise is |
| 17 |
> foolish :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
How many lines of code are in baselayout? How many in the tree? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Pushing for non-bash for ebuilds is pointless. The cost of using bash is |
| 22 |
tiny; the cost of not using bash is huge. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives