Re: [gnap-dev] Some patches for gnap

[josé Alberto Suárez López]

El vie, 06-07-2007 a las 18:08 +0300, Philipp Riegger escribió:
> josé Alberto Suárez López wrote:
>
> > kingtaco told me infra have the new machine, so i hope to have our new
> > home soon, so all of us can use the repo to work together and fast.
>
> Nice. With this change, are you also switching to svn or soemthing like
> that or changing the gnap repository layout? Making a difference between
> gnap_make and the other scripts seems rather artificial, since they are
> sharing code now.

we will change to svn, the layout is not determined yet, Who want to be
the first to propose the layout? :)

> >> Note:
> >> 1) There are 2 gnap_shared.sh so far, one in the src and one in the toos
> >> directory of the gnap svn tree. This should maybe be changed...
> >
> > shoudl be
>
> Where do you want to have it?

as you own :)

[...]

> > i like the idea, work on it and tell me. I prefer as less config files
> > to edit better.
>
> The easiest way to implement this would be:
>
> We use ${:-} or ${:=} (i have to understand the difference between them)
> for default parameters, parse the command line for the first time only
> extracting parameters concerning external config files or -h, parse theese
> config files (we have them or default config files), order will be
> common.conf and then catalyst.conf (so common.conf can overwrite the
> variable saying where to find catalyst.conf), we parse the command line
> options again and use all the info given there to set/overwrite variables.
>
> Advantages:
>  - No additional variables needed
>  - Quite easy change
>  - Should give us what we want
>  - No need for a config file parser
>
> Disadvantages:
>  - Well... common.conf and catalyst.conf can overwrite lots of things, we
> never check which config file is allowed to overwrite what. But if
> somebody does strange things there, it's not our fault, i think

seem well to me, who thinks the other zombies in the list?

[...]

> >> 3) gnap_make feature: improved overlay handling
>
> [...]
>
> > To improve is ever good :)
>
> An alternative would be to introduce overlay handling to catalyst, but i
> think, we don't want that. :-)

sure :P

> >> 4) some small stuff
> >>
> >> At the moment, if there is a choice (Overwrite/Append, Yes/No) only one
> >> possibility is checked and the other is assumed, if the one is not
> >> given.
> >> I'd like to change this to something like "It is asked in a loop until a
> >> valid option is given."

ok, is not a major change

> >> There is a function gwarn, writes to stderr. It is used in some places
> >> where ginfo would make more sence, if it would exist. I'd like to
> >> implement and use this.
> >
> > for example?
>
> gwarn 'The following targets will be called:'
> gwarn "${TARGETLIST}"

ok implement ginfo.

> >> That's all i wanted to say about the gnap_scripts at the moment.
> >
> > you say a lot :)
>
> Hmm... is that good or bad? :)

good :P

>
> > nice job
>
> Thanks, unfortunately not what i applied for. :-(
>
> See you,
>     Philipp

-- 
gnap-dev@g.o mailing list