From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28226 invoked by uid 1002); 6 Dec 2003 19:48:42 -0600 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-portage-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail Reply-To: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 2455 invoked from network); 6 Dec 2003 19:48:38 -0600 X-WM-Posted-At: mailandnews.com; Sat, 6 Dec 03 20:48:36 -0500 X-WM-Posted-At: mailandnews.com; Sat, 6 Dec 03 20:42:15 -0500 From: "Jason Stubbs" To: Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 10:44:09 +0900 Message-ID: <004901c3bc63$9c47ef10$9601a8c0@jason01> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 In-Reply-To: <20031206194112.GA8713@cerberus.oppresses.us> Subject: RE: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page X-Archives-Salt: bd7dda66-76ac-48c8-a2f4-3694004b9669 X-Archives-Hash: baf63468ad364618fca2a9e4c72b6e64 -----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 "legacy" build scripts that are superceded by something a lot better, 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