On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 02:40:58AM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 20:32:20 -0500 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Portage is considerably less work than the tree. Saving as much effort > as possible from an ebuild perspective should be a major consideration, > even if it makes the portage side more complicated. Think of how all > the ebuild-related problems are going to be solved first. Don't leave > it as an afterthought. Round and round we go.
The ebuild related problems aren't going to be solved in portage till someone has a general solution that can be pushed into portage/ebuild.sh base template. That's something that requires people diving in and screwing with it. > | My point experimentation can start for addressing the issues you keep > | pointing at still stands. > > The sensible place to start experimenting is by adapting existing > ebuilds and tinkering with ebuild.sh, not by adding something which may > or may not end up being relevant to portage proper. Bluntly, what the hell do you think we're talking about here? In case you haven't caught on, there *are* portage modifications that have to go with it, meaning more then ebuild.sh. Regardless, I'll backport haubi's patch to stable if anyone is after screwing with it, unless michael's has a version that applies cleanly to .53_rc4. Enough dancing, would rather hand it off to those who are interested, and see what they come up with rather then fencing via email (and accomplishing nothing). Michael, got anything I can mold to .5*, or just backport the 2.1 mod? ~harring
pgpmLvkkFehel.pgp
Description: PGP signature
