From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M3bQJ-0001wC-Rf for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 11 May 2009 19:44:28 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AFBE7E036F; Mon, 11 May 2009 19:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bw0-f223.google.com (mail-bw0-f223.google.com [209.85.218.223]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B743E036F for ; Mon, 11 May 2009 19:44:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bwz23 with SMTP id 23so2692893bwz.34 for ; Mon, 11 May 2009 12:44:25 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; 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=ALEYZ9zZUCIi6J4+sNZW46YuMxgHpslk1liPKfJhT8w=; b=OYYSdt7pm+juG3c2xcLCQIdvm+biBtss1YelhGbgcVU7Dvm7L0jQYR/3eVcP2riIlB 2eD7MGAeJLW3CTJcTxZxa1nlJoz7vyu5T9+SKiHfSo2rHTIsPykc74o4/svFDeq432jD QspIPdywlVJAv2aedazn6KX2AExO7bbjnfDcg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id :mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=xCmiKKMF2OsYHxlsbbggiFhjONNcF65GiK/a9jlyRLkj0oguOoL3MO1E1jiJwFH47H G0IiWD2VClRvUTsZP3fFIJsErgzYsca/7QygSh5t41cEFJXtP8OFF8gZa9r+F5yJzNY/ L8g0MQZPDkFharETITJYP5RKDRoGUDVlwwouQ= Received: by 10.102.228.10 with SMTP id a10mr4664991muh.26.1242071065690; Mon, 11 May 2009 12:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?10.0.0.4? ([89.180.65.51]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id n7sm5252140mue.28.2009.05.11.12.44.24 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 11 May 2009 12:44:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Google SoC @ Gentoo - Universal Select Tool From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?S=E9rgio?= Almeida To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20090510225651.GB17162@aerie.halcy0n.com> References: <1241470894.6119.80.camel@thedude> <20090510225651.GB17162@aerie.halcy0n.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 20:09:18 +0100 Message-Id: <1242068958.4051.19.camel@thedude> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.26.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 64eff5dd-8a07-4809-93eb-2a48c13b8464 X-Archives-Hash: 27c028ac689b09ab1551a8551ca3c5c0 On Sun, 2009-05-10 at 18:56 -0400, Mark Loeser wrote: > S=C3=A9rgio Almeida said: > > Abstract: > >=20 > > Universal Select Tool is an utility to manage system configuration. > > This tool is similar to the unmaintained eselect utility of Gentoo or > > Exherbo's eclectic. The idea is to create a tool that manages both > > system settings and user settings with profile creation possibilities= . > > The utility will use mostly concepts from "modules", "softenv", and > > both "eselect" and "eclectic". >=20 > I guess this is a very high level question...but do we need yet another > eselect? Why can't we enhance or fix what we already have rather than > creating everything from scratch? >=20 Mark, >>From my point of view, uselect is not YA eselect. eselect wasn't thought from the beginning to be universal and therefore it would need a full re-write as you suggest. At this point (and SoC hasn't yet started) I have implemented uselect with all eselect capabilities in python (served as well to un-rust myself from python programming) and it is extremely faster. uselect supports modules in any scripting language (implemented too) and eselect only supports bash. uselect new architecture supports the auto-creation of simple symlinking/environment/alias modules (most of them will be it) using only a few regular expressions to define what to change and not how to change (uselect will do it for you). At this point eselect may be considered deprecated as it's functionalities are limited and there is no much we can do besides bloating bash code (what you call enhance) and bugfixing. Let us all consider uselect another utility with some "similar" functionalities from eselect but with a lot more features from modules and softenv. I knew your question would pop up and it is important to everyone to know the differences between the two utilities. I will post (in a near future) an example package for everyone to test and give it's opinion on how should every idea work instead of leaving all the decisions to me. Thanks. Cheers, S=C3=A9rgio --=20 S=C3=A9rgio Almeida mephx @ freenode