From: Kapil Thangavelu <ender@objectrealms.net>
To: <gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page
Date: Sun, 07 Dec 2003 01:11:00 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <BBF82EA4.9B90%ender@objectrealms.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1070782855.6073.441.camel@ht.gentoo.org>
are we at the stage yet, where some structured metadata representation
outside of the ebuild will be used ?
incidentally the mailing list manager isn't honoring requests for
archives/indexes... so, apologies in advance if this has already been
discussed/decided.
-k
On 12/6/03 11:40 PM, "Daniel Robbins" <drobbins@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 19:39, George Shapovalov wrote:
>> 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.
>
> It would be very difficult to get good results from a converter tool,
> due to the many complexities of ebuild parsing.
>
>> But then I don't really see the problem with present format.
>
> You just explained how much of a chore it would be to convert from
> ebuild to something else. Doesn't this point to a weakness in the syntax
> of ebuilds themselves? I mean, if they were more formally defined, they
> could be converted to XML or anything else without much effort.
>
>> 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.
>
> This isn't an informed comment :) Portage depends on bash for extraction
> of metadata as well. Extraction of metadata is *the* Portage 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.
>
> If it were trivial we would have done it already. The only way to "undo"
> the dependence on bash is to make seemingly arbitrary rules of what is
> legal and not legal to type inside ebuilds. This leads to a lot of
> strange rules (such as rules about where you can and can't use variable
> expansion, and where you can and can't use bash conditionals) and makes
> ebuild-writing a tricky process. We already have some of these rules in
> effect, and it makes ebuild-writing a bit trickier than it should be.
>
> We don't want ebuild-writing to be tricky, so the solution is to
> architect a way to represent ebuild data in a way that is more useful to
> portage-ng and more natural for ebuild-ng writers.
>
> Regards,
>
> Daniel
>
--
gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-12-07 9:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-12-05 9:58 [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page George Shapovalov
2003-12-05 12:26 ` Paul de Vrieze
2003-12-05 21:33 ` George Shapovalov
2003-12-06 14:26 ` Paul de Vrieze
2003-12-06 19:35 ` Daniel Robbins
2003-12-06 19:41 ` Jon Portnoy
2003-12-07 0:13 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] ebuild strengths/weaknesses Daniel Robbins
2003-12-07 1:44 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page Jason Stubbs
2003-12-07 2:39 ` George Shapovalov
2003-12-07 3:12 ` Jason Stubbs
2003-12-07 4:50 ` Ray Russell Reese III
2003-12-07 7:27 ` Daniel Robbins
2003-12-07 7:40 ` Daniel Robbins
2003-12-07 9:11 ` Kapil Thangavelu [this message]
2003-12-07 11:11 ` Paul de Vrieze
2003-12-08 16:03 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page, ebuild conversion Sandy McArthur
2003-12-07 11:05 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page Paul de Vrieze
2003-12-07 19:59 ` Philippe Lafoucrière
2003-12-07 20:10 ` Philippe Lafoucrière
2003-12-07 20:12 ` Jeff Smelser
2003-12-07 21:01 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] gpg signing of Manifests Douglas Russell
2003-12-07 21:53 ` Douglas Russell
2003-12-06 23:00 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng concurse entry Was: Updated Portage project page George Shapovalov
2003-12-07 11:18 ` Paul de Vrieze
2003-12-05 16:54 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng design competition -- not yet Daniel Robbins
2003-12-05 20:35 ` George Shapovalov
2003-12-05 21:59 ` [gentoo-portage-dev] portage-ng wish list Sandy McArthur
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=BBF82EA4.9B90%ender@objectrealms.net \
--to=ender@objectrealms.net \
--cc=gentoo-portage-dev@gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox