| 1 |
On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:40:58AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:32:20 -0500 Brian Harring <ferringb@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Portage is considerably less work than the tree. Saving as much effort |
| 5 |
> as possible from an ebuild perspective should be a major consideration, |
| 6 |
> even if it makes the portage side more complicated. Think of how all |
| 7 |
> the ebuild-related problems are going to be solved first. Don't leave |
| 8 |
> it as an afterthought. |
| 9 |
Round and round we go. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The ebuild related problems aren't going to be solved in portage till |
| 12 |
someone has a general solution that can be pushed into |
| 13 |
portage/ebuild.sh base template. That's something that requires |
| 14 |
people diving in and screwing with it. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> | My point experimentation can start for addressing the issues you keep |
| 17 |
> | pointing at still stands. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> The sensible place to start experimenting is by adapting existing |
| 20 |
> ebuilds and tinkering with ebuild.sh, not by adding something which may |
| 21 |
> or may not end up being relevant to portage proper. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Bluntly, what the hell do you think we're talking about here? In case |
| 24 |
you haven't caught on, there *are* portage modifications that have to |
| 25 |
go with it, meaning more then ebuild.sh. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Regardless, I'll backport haubi's patch to stable if anyone is after |
| 28 |
screwing with it, unless michael's has a version that applies cleanly |
| 29 |
to .53_rc4. Enough dancing, would rather hand it off to those who are |
| 30 |
interested, and see what they come up with rather then fencing via |
| 31 |
email (and accomplishing nothing). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Michael, got anything I can mold to .5*, or just backport the 2.1 mod? |
| 34 |
~harring |
Archives