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

[Ray Russell Reese III <russ@zerotech.net>]

Wouldn't it be wise then to allow for multiple ebuild formats through
plug-ins? Like you say, a considerable amount of ebuilds need nothing
more than to run configure, make, and make install. 

Then there are those ebuilds that are a few hundred lines (or gasp more)
of bash script that would benefit from something more structured. What
that something is I honestly don't know. But at least with the plug-able
ebuild format, we could retain compatibility with the current ebuilds,
and slowly phase them into something more appropriate.

Just my $0.02. 

- Ray Russell Reese III [ freenode:anti ]

On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 21:39, George Shapovalov wrote:
> On Saturday 06 December 2003 17:44, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Hm, isn't it a bit too late to change ebuild format, with us sitting on 7000+ 
> ebuilds? The only reasonable way to do so is to make it structurally 
> compatible and create a converter tool. Even then this is a major endeavor 
> that would require a very good reason (nothing short of deadly limitations of 
> the present format, which I woudn't say is the case). Furthermore, this would 
> require wide publicity and even votes if we do not want to alienate users, as 
> this is the change that definitely will affect them (take a look at number of 
> new ebuild submissions ;)).
> 
> But then I don't really see the problem with present format. bash involvment 
> is really necessary only during the pkg_* and src_* steps, when a lot of 
> other stuff is going to happen anyway, so this is hardly a bottleneck. To get 
> definitions of various vars and dependency information out is trivial and can 
> be done in anything. That bash is involved in this step at present is 
> unfortunate, but there were reasons for it and it definitely may be undone 
> even for the present portage.
> 
> George
> 
> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 


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