At 2005-03-04 11:08 +0000 Ian Leitch Wrote: > Sorry to spoil your post Chris, but I think this is just another > testimonial to how badly we all need that portage API (plus the portage > daemon for tools such as Porthole who currently also have to parse > emerge output). This is by no means the first attempt at parsing I've seen.
Well, I do indeed see that as a valid argument, but at the same time, something like this may take a bit shorter time as far as implementation than getting the works of a new portage API. In fact, even if we did get a portage API, I still think that parsing could extend the flexibility of portage as you have you seen. On another point, I would assume (correct me if I'm wrong), that the portage API would be python based. For those who don't want to use python, you can still add functionality (this was written in perl) that you desire. > But hey, nice work in the absence of the API, it does look like the > script has uses. > > Regards, > Ian Leitch
signature.asc
Description: =?UTF-8?Q?=E3=81=93=E3=81=AE=E3=83=A1=E3=83=83=E3=82=BB=E3=83=BC?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E3=82=B8=E3=81=AB=E3=81=AF=E3=83=87=E3=82=B8=E3=82=BF?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E3=83=AB=E7=BD=B2=E5=90=8D=E3=81=95=E3=82=8C=E3=81=9F?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E9=83=A8=E5=88=86=E3=81=8C=E3=81=82=E3=82=8A=E3=81=BE?= =?UTF-8?Q?=E3=81=99?=
