Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: qt.eclass

[Paul de Vrieze]

On Friday 01 July 2005 23:00, Dan Armak wrote:
> On Friday 01 July 2005 23:19, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > On Friday 01 July 2005 17:14, Jonathan Smith wrote:
> > > Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> > >  > Btw, what's wrong with the `DEPEND="$(your_function)" || die`
> > > >
> > > > i've proposed?  Using a return code seems to be the simplest way
> > > > to signal a failure, no?
> > >
> > > calling a function in a global scope is a bad idea. it leads to lots of
> > > unneccessary (and timely) computations
> >
> > It also makes any attempts to parse ebuilds without using bash (our
> > current strategy) a lot harder (actually causing bash reimplementation)
>
> You mean you're actually doing that for portage-cvs? I didn't know that.
> Does 'our current strategy' refer to using bash or to not using it?

I'm not working on portage. I don't know what people do, but parsing ebuilds 
is certainly easier orders of magnitude faster than bash parsing them (I have 
prove of concept code).

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@g.o
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net