From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16418 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2004 14:51:36 +0000 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (156.56.111.197) by lists.gentoo.org with AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 30 Nov 2004 14:51:36 +0000 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([156.56.111.196] helo=parrot.gentoo.org) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.41) id 1CZ9Ls-0006Ct-C5 for arch-gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:51:36 +0000 Received: (qmail 27027 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2004 14:51:35 +0000 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@lists.gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 10512 invoked from network); 30 Nov 2004 14:51:35 +0000 From: Jason Stubbs To: gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:53:19 +0900 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 References: <9ef20ef3041127151046107fb5@mail.gmail.com> <9ef20ef3041128090844573b74@mail.gmail.com> <1101824527.32056.102.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <1101824527.32056.102.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200411302353.19408.jstubbs@gentoo.org> Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Current portage well designed, but badly used X-Archives-Salt: 2148090d-efbc-4f42-8dae-819a8fb8cd20 X-Archives-Hash: 0b851945dfcc1cd32cf46122ef8c70f6 On Tuesday 30 November 2004 23:22, Brian Harring wrote: > On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 09:08, Gustavo Barbieri wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:48:54 -0600, Michael Tindal > > wrote: > > > Jstubbs is working on an api that will make its way into a later > > > revision of portage. As far as parsing > > > ebuilds, they are sourced directly from bash. > > > > There is any explanation/roadmap/design I can look at? Jstubbs reads > > this list? What's his goals, how he want to achieve it? I read your first message, thought to myself "does this deserve an answer?" and then ignored the entire thread, apart from Michael's and Brian's posts. > He'd have to state his goals- Strict clear dependency resolution. It's already slower in CVS and, at least theoretically, can only become slower. On the other hand, it should save hours and hours in compile failures. Regards, Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list