-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Chris White wrote: ~ > 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.
Indeed, it is a nice tool to have while we wait for the API, I should have made this clear in my first post, sorry :)
As for using other languages, once the API is in place it would then be possible to create bindings for those languages.
BTW, no need to send to robin.g.o and lists.g.o anymore, either will do.
Regards, Ian Leitch
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCKKBCefZ4eWAXRGIRAl4kAJ0U5akp5ksMD30nOllbvF9uRxJfxACfSXL1 ykRWHqesC3oxtietmNOjDI4= =BIVn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- [email protected] mailing list
