Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: George Shapovalov <george@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:38:36
Message-Id: 200312061839.56139.george@gentoo.org
In Reply to: RE: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page by Jason Stubbs
1 On Saturday 06 December 2003 17:44, Jason Stubbs wrote:
2 > It's not getting ahead of things! That's a requirement that's not
3 > covered yet. "Package definition should be powerful but simple with a
4 > small learning curve" or something to that effect.
5
6 Hm, isn't it a bit too late to change ebuild format, with us sitting on 7000+
7 ebuilds? The only reasonable way to do so is to make it structurally
8 compatible and create a converter tool. Even then this is a major endeavor
9 that would require a very good reason (nothing short of deadly limitations of
10 the present format, which I woudn't say is the case). Furthermore, this would
11 require wide publicity and even votes if we do not want to alienate users, as
12 this is the change that definitely will affect them (take a look at number of
13 new ebuild submissions ;)).
14
15 But then I don't really see the problem with present format. bash involvment
16 is really necessary only during the pkg_* and src_* steps, when a lot of
17 other stuff is going to happen anyway, so this is hardly a bottleneck. To get
18 definitions of various vars and dependency information out is trivial and can
19 be done in anything. That bash is involved in this step at present is
20 unfortunate, but there were reasons for it and it definitely may be undone
21 even for the present portage.
22
23 George
24
25
26
27 --
28 gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies