Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Questions about CVS locations and GID...

[Ciaran McCreesh]

On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:48:26 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o>
wrote:
| > The sensible place to start experimenting is by adapting existing
| > ebuilds and tinkering with ebuild.sh, not by adding something which
| > may or may not end up being relevant to portage proper.
| 
| Bluntly, what the hell do you think we're talking about here?  In
| case you haven't caught on, there *are* portage modifications that
| have to go with it, meaning more then ebuild.sh.

And you don't have a clue what said modifications really are until
after you solve the ebuild side of things. The correct way to solve the
problem is as follows:

1. Properly define what you are trying to solve from an end result
perspective.
2. Properly define and provide substantial examples of how this can be
done sanely through ebuilds.
3. Work out how this applies to portage.
4. Make sensible small revisions to 2. and 1. as necessary based upon
any problems encountered in 3.

The wrong way is as follows:

1. Jump in with some portage code which does something random.
2. Come up with a badly thought out incomplete requirements list.
3. Start hacking ebuilds into an even worse mess to accommodate earlier
screwups.

And for the sake of completeness, the other wrong way which isn't being
taken this time is:

1. Come up with some buzzwords.
2. ???
3. Profit!

| Regardless, I'll backport haubi's patch to stable if anyone is after 
| screwing with it, unless michael's has a version that applies cleanly 
| to .53_rc4.  Enough dancing, would rather hand it off to those who
| are interested, and see what they come up with rather then fencing
| via email (and accomplishing nothing).

*sniff* *sniff* Ah yes, the familiar smell of multilib, osx, genkernel
and the original portage implementation.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Shell tools, Fluxbox, Cron)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm