| 1 |
On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 10:05:02AM -0800, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2019 at 3:43 AM Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > On Sat, 28 Dec 2019 11:35:49 +0000 |
| 5 |
> > Michael 'veremitz' Everitt <gentoo@×××××××.xyz> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > > Note: we're nnot acttually talking about replacing portage here, just |
| 8 |
> > > creating a tool ((((thiink php script web tthingy)) that will do some of |
| 9 |
> > > the pre-screeninng worrrrk that AT hate (eg.... what kensiington did |
| 10 |
> > with |
| 11 |
> > > stable-bbot) |
| 12 |
> > > |
| 13 |
> > > * with apologies for keyboard/remote-access lagggg creating typo hell. |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > But, doing that requires viewing realised copies of ebuilds, which |
| 16 |
> > requires interpreting eclasses and variable interpolation, which |
| 17 |
> > requires bash sourcing, which requires a mountain of portage hell. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> > Yes, sharing the stable-bot logic would probably be fine. |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > But it doesn't use a database AFAIK, it would likely just be making use |
| 23 |
> > of the MD5Cache (either directly, or indirectly via portage APIs) |
| 24 |
> > |
| 25 |
> > But I won't be volunteering, because I won't touch python. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> You could of course work together with someone else to write the tool? |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> -A |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Ah, you found the Achilles heel. It is much easier to postulate on the mailing |
| 33 |
list, use big words, and then say you just won't do that thing because |
| 34 |
tools/languages such. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Perl though... |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Cheers, |
| 40 |
Aaron |
Archives