Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] default postsync

[Ned Ludd]

On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 22:36 +0200, Simon Stelling wrote:
> Ned Ludd wrote:
> > #!/bin/sh
> > # Copyright 2006 Gentoo Foundation
> > # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> > # $Header: $
> >
> > if [ -d /etc/portage/postsync.d/ ]; then
> >         for f in /etc/portage/postsync.d/* ; do
> >                 if [ -x ${f} ] ; then
> >                         ${f}
> >                 fi
> >         done
> > else
> >         :
> > fi
> > ##############################
> >
> > How do you think we should handle it?
>
> I'd prefer this way:
>
> ----
> #!/bin/sh
> # Copyright 2006 Gentoo Foundation
> # Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
> # $Header: $
>
> if [ -f /etc/portage/bashrc ]; then
> 	source /etc/portage/bashrc
> 	[ "$(type -t post_sync)" == "function" ] && post_sync
> fi
> ----
>
> i.e. use bashrc for this. We handle the existing hooks through bashrc,
> and postsync hooks aren't anything different, so they should be handled
> through the same logic. I think it's just more intuitive than a
> postsync.d/ subdirectory.

The post_sync action already exists in both 2.0 and 2.1 
This mail is about extending it before it becomes wide spread to 
include more than 1 action.

I'm thinking bashrc is not really the right place for this cuz there is
no $EBUILD_PHASE and everything todo with bashrc to date has always 
been fed a PHASE where things like $PN / $PV / $D / $EBUILD etc are set.
post sync actions are completely separate from ebuilds on the 
individual level.

Honestly I'm thinking more on the lines of this is best suited for 
4-5 lines of python.

-peace.


> --
> Kind Regards,
>
> Simon Stelling
> Gentoo/AMD64 Developer
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list