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
> >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. :)
> 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
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.