| 1 |
But with /etc/profile/packages.env/ there is only one thing, which not |
| 2 |
good enough. I really can't make a one look and see what and where I |
| 3 |
define. I mean, if I look into one file, I see something like, let say, |
| 4 |
30 lines, which looks clear and understandable for me. |
| 5 |
But with recursive subdirectories...Simple sollution is ls -R, but if I |
| 6 |
have 30 packages with redefinition, and, let say, average two ENV files |
| 7 |
in each directory... That going to be a difficult for simple |
| 8 |
understanding, probably :) Of course directories more logic. But I guess |
| 9 |
it will be never 300 definitions of some ENV's for 300 packages. |
| 10 |
But...who know.. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
And about confusing...I just think that mostly this ENV files will be |
| 13 |
used for some kind of typical job. So, you will not have 100 files for |
| 14 |
100 packages. But raser you will have 10 files, no more (there is just |
| 15 |
not so many things to define :) ). And will include some of them to some |
| 16 |
of 100 packages, more than one at the same time, probably. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Anton Starikov aka Antst :) |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 22 |
> On Tuesday 31 August 2004 06:26 pm, Antst GD wrote: |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
>>For the moment both solutions looks ugly for me. At least I can't |
| 25 |
>>imaging simple and easy-to-understand syntax for package.env, which will |
| 26 |
>>look nice and will parce without problems. |
| 27 |
>> |
| 28 |
>>What do you think about? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> most of what you proposed seems excessive and confusing (and like you say, |
| 32 |
> ugly) ... a cleaner/simpler solution can be taken from your work though i |
| 33 |
> think ... |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> we have a directory: |
| 36 |
> /etc/profile/packages.env/ |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> in this directory we have simple bash (bash because we can just source it and |
| 39 |
> be done with it) files which line up in a similar fashion to the portage |
| 40 |
> tree ... for example, if i want an env file for bash, i would have: |
| 41 |
> /etc/profile/packages.env/app-shells/bash |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> i think this is about all we need ... and like Antst pointed out, this looks |
| 44 |
> like it'd be real simple to implement ... |
| 45 |
> -mike |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
-- |
| 49 |
Anton Starikov |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
-- |
| 52 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives