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 |