On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:41:20 +0200 Natanael Copa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | On Thu, 2006-10-12 at 16:18 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | > On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:24:36 +0200 Natanael Copa | > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | > | btw.. I keep hearing about this paladius. Is it more | > | script-friendly than emerge? | > | > Once we get the Ruby interface fleshed out it will be... | | What about shell scripts? | | Is it one (or few) big fat executable that can do everything windows | style, or is it small cooperating executables unix style?
It's a .so file (well, several .so files) written in C++, plus supporting bash scripts for ebuildy things. There're several client apps available, most of which are reasonably shell script friendly for small things. For complex tasks you're better off using the API rather than pipes. | Is fancy/pretty features like colors and prytty output more important | than easy-to-use with pipes in shell scripts? The two don't have to be mutually exclusive. Having said that, Ruby is a good shell scripting language... -- Ciaran McCreesh Mail : ciaranm at ciaranm.org Web : http://ciaranm.org/ as-needed is broken : http://ciaranm.org/show_post.pl?post_id=13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
