| 1 |
It would be great to have these ideas in our wiki page: |
| 2 |
http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Google_Summer_of_Code/2013 |
| 3 |
There is no need add yourself in the contacts, but you can document |
| 4 |
them (3-4 lines). |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> On Mon, 2013-03-04 at 23:44 +0100, Antoine Pinsard wrote: |
| 8 |
>> Hi again, |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> I have two more project ideas and wonder if they are good ones and if |
| 11 |
>> they fit well the summer of code. |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> The first one came from this discussion on Gentoo-Chat: |
| 14 |
>> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-951096.html |
| 15 |
>> |
| 16 |
>> According to some users (well, actually one for the time being), some |
| 17 |
>> portage tools "are out of date or do not completely fulfill the |
| 18 |
>> requirements of users" (last message of the first page). |
| 19 |
>> |
| 20 |
>> The idea is thus to fetch these tools and put them into two lists: those |
| 21 |
>> which need a few fixes and those which are better to be fully rewritten. |
| 22 |
>> Then evaluate which ones can be done while the summer of code. |
| 23 |
>> |
| 24 |
>> Do you think it could be a good subject? |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> First sorry it's taken so long to respond. I've been quite busy, plus I |
| 28 |
> wasn't sure how to best reply... |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> Well, I know that we would like to re-write euse into python from bash. |
| 31 |
> By doing that euse could use the portage api calls to get better, more |
| 32 |
> consistent/current data to provide the users. It could also speed up |
| 33 |
> it's operation over the bash version (minor point). It would make it |
| 34 |
> easier to maintain as changes in operation on those files, accessing the |
| 35 |
> data about the flags, etc. change, the api calls are likely to not |
| 36 |
> change. That would make many changes automatically available, used |
| 37 |
> without needing to update the code. An euse re-write in python using |
| 38 |
> the portage api would also allow for more options/features to be easily |
| 39 |
> added. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> However I don't think that an euse re-write would be enough for gsoc |
| 42 |
> project. There are other tools in gentoolkit that could use more |
| 43 |
> updates, but for the most part are not extensive. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> I've cc'd the tools-portage alias so that we can all particiapte in any |
| 46 |
> further inquiries about gentoolkit and other tools-portage packages that |
| 47 |
> we maintain. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> For a well motivated student we may be able to come up with enough work |
| 50 |
> suitable for a gsoc project. |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
>> Thanks |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> |
Archives