RE: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page

["Jason Stubbs" <jasonbstubbs@mailandnews.com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Portnoy [mailto:avenj@gentoo.org] 
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:41 AM
To: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated
Portage project page


On Sat, Dec 06, 2003 at 12:35:11PM -0700, Daniel Robbins wrote:

> For backwards compatibility with existing ebuilds, yes we will 
> probably still need the metadata cache since we'll still have some 
> kind of bash linkage. It's important to point out that the design of 
> portage-ng will not be tied to ebuilds. Ebuilds will likely become 
> "legacy" build scripts that are superceded by something a lot better, 
> cleaner, powerful and also faster for portage-ng.
> 

Please keep in mind that a significant number of users have expressed a 
fondness for ebuilds precisely because they can apply simple bash 
scripting knowledge to create a complex build script. Any new format 
should probably aim for similar syntax for precisely that reason.

(But this is getting way ahead of things.)

---- Jason Stubbs is writing:

It's not getting ahead of things! That's a requirement that's not
covered yet. "Package definition should be powerful but simple with a
small learning curve" or something to that effect.

Regards,
Jason Stubbs


--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list