| 1 |
Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 19:39, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>>Hm, isn't it a bit too late to change ebuild format, with us sitting on 7000+ |
| 5 |
>>ebuilds? The only reasonable way to do so is to make it structurally |
| 6 |
>>compatible and create a converter tool. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> It would be very difficult to get good results from a converter tool, |
| 9 |
> due to the many complexities of ebuild parsing. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
One transition methiod from one format to another I haven't seen is the |
| 12 |
idea that portage-old be made capable to convert ebuild-ng into |
| 13 |
ebuild-old until portage-ng is ready to be declared stable. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I presume ebuild-ng will be more structured and thus easier to convert |
| 16 |
to a less structured format like the current ebuild format. This would |
| 17 |
make the convertersion tool's job easier and less error prone ... probably. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Sandy McArthur |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives