public inbox for gentoo-portage-dev@lists.gentoo.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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