Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: "René 'Necoro' Neumann" <lists@××××××.eu>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [API] First steps for creating an API for portage
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:10:27
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [API] First steps for creating an API for portage by Brian Harring
1 Am 18.06.2010 09:55, schrieb Brian Harring:
2 > While I'm not generally a fan of embedding python, in this case it's
3 > what makes sense. That said I'm not hugely convinced the proposal on
4 > the table is accurate- knocking out a public portage API needs to
5 > occur, but a c-api is a very large and seperate beast from a public
6 > python API- namely due to crossing the vm, having to do FFI
7 > conversions, etc. It's not the simplest thing.
9 Well - there a tools like Cython which will take large parts of this
10 burden from your shoulder.
12 > For pkgkit, what I'd suggest is basically pushing into pkgkit just cpy
13 > stubs that know to import a specific namespace, and grab functions
14 > from there. It's been a while since I've gone through that code, but
15 > if memory serves this shouldn't be too hard to do- the reasons for
16 > doing this pretty much come down to allowing portage to minimize the
17 > area it needs to provide a stable API for.
18 >
19 > If all it has to provide is a stable set of functors for pkgkit,
20 > that leaves open fixing portage internals/architecture.
22 I thought this was the whole idea of having such an API - providing a
23 stable set of higher level functions, whose implementation can change if
24 needed.
26 Just pulling random portage functions into a new namespace is not a goal
27 imho.
29 - René


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


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [API] First steps for creating an API for portage Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com>