| 1 |
Damon M. Conway: |
| 2 |
Since eclasses are associated with a learning curve, would it not be |
| 3 |
preferrable to recast the whole inheritance thing in a proper |
| 4 |
object-oriented language and rather build a support framework for it there? |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Karl Trygve Kalleberg: |
| 7 |
hmm using scheme sounds very appealing, but the problem is that |
| 8 |
many of us have an unnatural fear of parenthesises... By using |
| 9 |
OO portage would be indeed more powerful and it would make it possible |
| 10 |
for a user to override doman if he wishes so easily, or to add a hook |
| 11 |
procedure that is run whenever src_compile is ready... |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Me: |
| 14 |
I think we'd better keep portage in bash (or rather what appears |
| 15 |
to be bash). We also need to keep it fairly simple. Otherwise we |
| 16 |
lose two important resources: (1) users contributing ebuilds rather |
| 17 |
than just installing tarballs on their own systems and (2) users |
| 18 |
making a legitimate attempt to diagnose bugs in an ebuild rather |
| 19 |
than just filing bug reports like "emerge failed." I don't see |
| 20 |
a problem in adding hooks. One can have emerge source config |
| 21 |
files, if present, at various points AFTER sourcing the ebuild |
| 22 |
but BEFORE calling functions and then call before_compile, |
| 23 |
after_compile, etc. The advantage of something like that is that |
| 24 |
it is pretty much invisible. If you want you use the hooks, |
| 25 |
override some defaults, etc. and you don't need to bother the |
| 26 |
ebuild writer or users who are happy to accept the defaults. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
John Stalker |
| 30 |
Department of Mathematics |
| 31 |
Princeton University |
| 32 |
(609)258-6469 |
Archives