From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB311138350 for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:30:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B4901E0ABE; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:30:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from knopi.disroot.org (knopi.disroot.org [178.21.23.139]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 316F0E0AAD for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 16:30:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by disroot.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECFCF26B0F for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 18:30:27 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at disroot.org Received: from knopi.disroot.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (disroot.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oM-RBWN1qAiS for ; Fri, 24 Apr 2020 18:30:26 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 18:30:25 +0200 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=disroot.org; s=mail; t=1587745826; bh=dQ7pBmElboZv+KgEtGGGXK5SxHwYlFzw4zfE5Gbab+Q=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=ER1zplTfF0N//KZ5NznV8oeLIRkiEGeKlpWg7QdbJVvF6g6HpzD7DwVckWdwI/zPw r53cMb1cUqjMFj1J4y6fu4yba4rfKvH/i5WxsgaL8NTfllag19ftbmz03er6rwhqFm anIe+Z+nyW2sqvJQriQzTNiO5c8TA1j601Ihuk4VDPYzCWeqrYXM7JUKMrbkA+lglG rUCl9aZv83IsJP9BUDOZ2VfMuSNj9Rr0YdfC985B9oMPtW0La4rcRVf52zVxyHR8rF euf+yTJ8bmVdE1vQU7lfaUVHEhMWbhw2n3ERRn0b6Jq+q2MQo7M+kZRagK4ABxYIhb livKyLzz1dTqQ== From: inasprecali To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [OBORONA-SPAM] Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead? In-Reply-To: <20200424092239.GA16833@legohost> References: <20200421165803.GB187193@redacted> <11506562.O9o76ZdvQC@peak> <20200421190145.GF187193@redacted> <20200422161455.GA23147@legohost> <20200423152716.51799a42.lembark@wrkhors.com> <20200424092239.GA16833@legohost> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <20200424163027.ECFCF26B0F@disroot.org> X-Archives-Salt: da4b2239-dbc2-431c-914b-43e49701c914 X-Archives-Hash: 1307fdbac6974c0c7abc4d65f26d49e2 On Fri, 24 Apr 2020 12:22:39 +0300 lego12239@yandex.ru wrote: > The core of portage should be in C, imho. But it can be extendable > with hooks written in something simple like a bash. > It mustn't be a solid binary. It can be splitted into separate parts > with strict definitions of interaction and interface. There is no rational reason for the core of Portage to be written in C. > :-D This shouldn't be a problem, because developers of extension > modules/hooks(if they choose C for this) will use a something > like libportage with util and wrapper functions which will hide > all mallocs. And you yourself gave a very good reason why.