| 1 |
On Thu, 2005-10-11 at 20:51 -0600, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2005 at 06:42:54PM -0800, Brian wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Just a quick question. With all the changes I see in this list. Is |
| 4 |
> > there anything coming (that you know of) that will break porthole's use |
| 5 |
> > of portage. |
| 6 |
> Long term? I'm unfortunately looking at breaking pretty much all api |
| 7 |
> access portage wise, for 3.0. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I knew that one. From what I have gathered so far I believe 3.0 is |
| 10 |
getting the long awaited public API. Is that correct? If so I'll have |
| 11 |
to start paying more attention to it and setup a test box to start |
| 12 |
changing our portagelib.py to use it. (I can't afford to trash my main |
| 13 |
box, I have business stuff on it.) Just let me know when it's time for |
| 14 |
testing. :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Short term? Unless you're doing questionable stuff like bypassing the |
| 19 |
> cache layer and accessing the files on disk... nope, shouldn't hork |
| 20 |
> anything. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> ~harring |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
mostly just lookup stuff, get defaults, status, package info, etc.. All |
| 25 |
emerges are done properly through a terminal and normal command line |
| 26 |
calls. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Thanks... |
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Brian <dol-sen@×××××.net> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives