| 1 |
Maybe I'm incorrect, but I believe Kristian was not saying use XML, |
| 2 |
but using xml as a comparasison (I know there is a better word.. but |
| 3 |
its escaping me... that comparassion thing on the SAT's). He's not |
| 4 |
saying to use xml, but in order to extend portage, extend it much like |
| 5 |
xml extends html, with a pluggable script referenced as the dtd |
| 6 |
equivvelent. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
On 8/26/05, Kristian Benoit <kbenoit@×××××××.com> wrote: |
| 9 |
> On the EAPI subject Brian just brought back, I had this idea that we |
| 10 |
> could use the same approch XML took with HTML. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> The ebuild could define which EAPI to use, but instead beiing a version, |
| 13 |
> the EAPI would be an ebuild API definition. The equivalent to the XML's |
| 14 |
> dtd. The ebuild could point to a directory named |
| 15 |
> $PORTDIR/eapi/<eapi-name>/ which would contain a python script named |
| 16 |
> <eapi-name>.py. If not already loaded, that plugable eapi would be |
| 17 |
> loaded before processing the ebuild. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> That way, there is no outdated ebuild format. There is just a default |
| 20 |
> format which is the actual format. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> It could also be an XML defining the ebuild's build sequence and other |
| 23 |
> particularities a group of ebuild could have. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Kristian |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> -- |
| 28 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives