Gentoo Archives: gentoo-osx

From: Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
To: gentoo-osx@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-osx] SheBang script
Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:46:03
Message-Id: 20050914164554.GH6179@nightcrawler
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-osx] SheBang script by Grobian
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 06:42:55PM +0200, Grobian wrote:
> > > Brian Harring wrote: > >>Brian: Is this sort of thing best handled in bash ala bashrc, or is > >>there a good entry point in the portage code to plug this stuff in > >>pythonically? > > > >Kicking around something that would allow setups the ability to plug in > >chunks of code for doing things prior/post merge... > > > >So, hooking within the python side would be possible, and prefered. > >Basically is how collision-protect/setuid scans will be implemented, > >and probably triggering ldconfig runs even (assuming it works sanely). > > > >Less cruft jammed into bash, the better. :) > >~harring > > I personally think this script should be seen as 'proof-of-concept'. > It's not too fast, and it involves a lot of inefficient work. I'm no > python coder, but I think, given this 'proof-of-concept' it may be > fairly simple to write a function (?) or two in python that performs > this job a few orders of a magnitude faster and more controllable. > > The problem with these kinds of scripts is that their portability is not > really assured. I dubbed whether I would write a quick C version, but > again I stumbled upon the portability question and decided not to do so, > because portage, as inner core of Gentoo, should be as much as possible > unaffected by environmental differences. Python is (like Java) a > solution to that. So, ultimately, this script should be rewritten in > Python.
module, not script is prefered. Assuming I actually finish triggers and they don't suck, it'll be a passing the func in, not exec'ing a strict. ~harring


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-osx] SheBang script Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-osx] SheBang script Grobian <grobian@g.o>