Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Daniel Robbins <drobbins@g.o>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@g.o
Subject: [gentoo-portage-dev] ebuild strengths/weaknesses
Date: Sat, 06 Dec 2003 18:11:55
Message-Id: 1070755985.6073.418.camel@ht.gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page by Jon Portnoy
1 On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 12:41, Jon Portnoy wrote:
2 > Please keep in mind that a significant number of users have expressed a
3 > fondness for ebuilds precisely because they can apply simple bash
4 > scripting knowledge to create a complex build script. Any new format
5 > should probably aim for similar syntax for precisely that reason.
6
7 You mean similar ease of use, I think. It's hard to use bash syntax and
8 have a high-performance system. But I know where you're coming from. The
9 goal is to make them easier to use and more powerful than ebuilds.
10
11 I'd contend that ebuilds aren't the pinnacle of usability, although they
12 do have many strengths. There are aspects to ebuilds that can make them
13 tricky to use such as tons of conditionals all over the place, strange
14 unexpected side-effects caused by unexpected orders of execution,
15 limitations of what conditionals are actually *legal* in ebuilds ("foo?"
16 vs. "use foo" vs. "if [ ]"), etc.) There is a lot to improve. We'll want
17 to make the new format better while keeping or surpassing existing
18 strengths.
19
20 Then when we get to eclasses, we start to see that we are maxing out the
21 potential for a totally-bash-based system.
22
23 My recommendation: for all the stuff you like about ebuilds, make sure
24 they are in the requirements.
25
26 Regards,
27
28 Daniel

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature