| 1 |
-----Original Message----- |
| 2 |
From: Jon Portnoy [mailto:avenj@g.o] |
| 3 |
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:41 AM |
| 4 |
To: gentoo-portage-dev@g.o |
| 5 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated |
| 6 |
Portage project page |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 12:35:11PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote: |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
> For backwards compatibility with existing ebuilds, yes we will |
| 12 |
> probably still need the metadata cache since we'll still have some |
| 13 |
> kind of bash linkage. It's important to point out that the design of |
| 14 |
> portage-ng will not be tied to ebuilds. Ebuilds will likely become |
| 15 |
> "legacy" build scripts that are superceded by something a lot better, |
| 16 |
> cleaner, powerful and also faster for portage-ng. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Please keep in mind that a significant number of users have expressed a |
| 20 |
fondness for ebuilds precisely because they can apply simple bash |
| 21 |
scripting knowledge to create a complex build script. Any new format |
| 22 |
should probably aim for similar syntax for precisely that reason. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
(But this is getting way ahead of things.) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
---- Jason Stubbs is writing: |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
It's not getting ahead of things! That's a requirement that's not |
| 29 |
covered yet. "Package definition should be powerful but simple with a |
| 30 |
small learning curve" or something to that effect. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Regards, |
| 33 |
Jason Stubbs |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives