From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Icibd-0002ae-Jt for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:20:14 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with SMTP id l92EARsU019182; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:10:27 GMT Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (ug-out-1314.google.com [66.249.92.174]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l92E8aMY017020 for ; Tue, 2 Oct 2007 14:08:36 GMT Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id j3so2215301ugf for ; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:08:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; bh=RDg3Cli71AUNgTzRULGH9Zdqd4k826nXh/82j3XXmS4=; b=aUp/CDpMU9eDWtVM5xHjTqf859PdSG5RvNxgKfJUl3wg7sO443mBjLF4rDECubQQc3+JnY3wKV7/YA5KT8CKQDT2jstorR5MaQBIfYFzeJYbpdUP7Q/CBFbHljFgTjfzPimn0t/46JxevtcpRhM+Svr6fUYsOxh0i/uzD4XdKZQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=nRt2ZaTXqkBnV6qJqzbl0UfNkv2IrhqJhDVN52350VLngSBjZOs1VBN/B/Q/9DVK/GsqRdT5Q8zhw9kRC5JaVlam6fjSwTd2oMKktI1GWTaGhmp8Z+5zUaAPWuY8A0TA+Z8nG9Tr1tgLZjkCGrGax3rK3L1Cjk3u1gcYYEHCJXo= Received: by 10.66.224.19 with SMTP id w19mr1048361ugg.1191333684728; Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:01:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.65.211? ( [213.234.126.134]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k27sm644164ugd.2007.10.02.07.01.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 02 Oct 2007 07:01:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC: sh versionator.eclass From: Natanael Copa To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200710020926.21064.vapier@gentoo.org> References: <200710012259.40589.uberlord@gentoo.org> <200710020838.58266.vapier@gentoo.org> <4702449A.10402@gentoo.org> <200710020926.21064.vapier@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:01:21 +0200 Message-Id: <1191333681.12445.4.camel@nc.nor.wtbts.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 47d5762b-21c2-4906-8358-878a20cb6888 X-Archives-Hash: 5409e43e47c994b1b0d8d9f9d0c9b554 On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 09:26 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On Tuesday 02 October 2007, Luca Barbato wrote: > > Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > in the general case, dash will typically parse faster than bash. but is > > > this speed gain relevant ? if dash can parse an ebuild in 10% of the > > > time that it takes bash, but bash can do it in a 1 second, do we care ? > > > the majority of ebuilds are going to take magnitudes larger to get the > > > job done > > > (running ./configure && make). > > > > You may want to parse an ebuild not just for building it ^^ > > true ... but i'd have to wonder if there's anything worth parsing out that the > pregenerated metadata does not provide for you ... pkg_* and stuff that binary package managers needs. Things that creates user accounts etc. I would actually prefer getting that stuff into metadata. It would open up new doors for binary only package managers. > i guess if you want to > parse an ebuild that isnt in the tree thus lacks metadata ... but we further > marginalize the use ... > -mike -nc -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list