1 |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 06:42:55PM +0200, Grobian wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> Brian Harring wrote: |
5 |
> >>Brian: Is this sort of thing best handled in bash ala bashrc, or is |
6 |
> >>there a good entry point in the portage code to plug this stuff in |
7 |
> >>pythonically? |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> >Kicking around something that would allow setups the ability to plug in |
10 |
> >chunks of code for doing things prior/post merge... |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> >So, hooking within the python side would be possible, and prefered. |
13 |
> >Basically is how collision-protect/setuid scans will be implemented, |
14 |
> >and probably triggering ldconfig runs even (assuming it works sanely). |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> >Less cruft jammed into bash, the better. :) |
17 |
> >~harring |
18 |
> |
19 |
> I personally think this script should be seen as 'proof-of-concept'. |
20 |
> It's not too fast, and it involves a lot of inefficient work. I'm no |
21 |
> python coder, but I think, given this 'proof-of-concept' it may be |
22 |
> fairly simple to write a function (?) or two in python that performs |
23 |
> this job a few orders of a magnitude faster and more controllable. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> The problem with these kinds of scripts is that their portability is not |
26 |
> really assured. I dubbed whether I would write a quick C version, but |
27 |
> again I stumbled upon the portability question and decided not to do so, |
28 |
> because portage, as inner core of Gentoo, should be as much as possible |
29 |
> unaffected by environmental differences. Python is (like Java) a |
30 |
> solution to that. So, ultimately, this script should be rewritten in |
31 |
> Python. |
32 |
module, not script is prefered. |
33 |
|
34 |
Assuming I actually finish triggers and they don't suck, it'll be a |
35 |
passing the func in, not exec'ing a strict. |
36 |
~harring |