Dirkjan Ochtman <d...@gentoo.org> writes: > I guess by now pretty much everyone knows that the python eclass is > rather complex, and that this poses some problems. This has also been > an important cause for the disagreements between Arfrever and some of > the other developers. Since it appears that Arfrever won't be > committing much code to gentoo-x86 in the near future, I'm trying to > figure out where we should go with the python.eclass. This email is an > attempt at figuring that out, plus eliciting ideas to come up with a > general framework that will also solve this for ruby and other similar > runtimes (while supporting some of the features that the current > python eclass has, but that ruby-ng doesn't have). > > So I know a bunch of people have already looked at it, and I'd like to > know: what do you find better about the Ruby approach compared to the > Python approach? Is it just the size of python.eclass, or are there a > number of other issues?
Let's skip the Ruby step, and go directly to Common Lisp! -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ A bad day in () is better than a good day in {}.
