On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 08:03 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:40:20 +0000
> Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 07:12 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > > Except it won't, because ebuilds require bash regardless of which
> > > package manager is being used. If you want to change that you'll
> > > have to rewrite the entire tree.
> >
> > Az once said near enough the same thing about baselayout. And that's
> > your view, your entitled to it, but it is not my view. Change a little
> > bit here, a little bit there. Slowly does it.
>
> It's not a view. It's a simple fact.
It's my considered opinion that it's a view.
You are free to call it what you like.
> > Yes, I know that a fair chunk of the tree will need a re-write, just
> > in the same way that the init scripts got a re-write. It will take
> > time, it will not happen magically over night. To think overwise is
> > foolish :)
>
> How many lines of code are in baselayout? How many in the tree?
>
> Pushing for non-bash for ebuilds is pointless. The cost of using bash is
> tiny; the cost of not using bash is huge.
Size of baselayout compared to the tree is small vs huge. But unlike
baselayout, the ebuilds themselves should be relatively easy as they
don't normally use bash specific features [1]. The real work is in the
eclasses which make extensive use of bash specific features, such as
arrays. A quick look at the dir shows that there's probably a similar
number of eclasses to the number of init scripts installed by ebuilds.
[1] The one expection being ${var//foo/var} which is used a fair bit. It
could also be argued that versionator should be used more which oddly
enough should also reduce the use of this bashism.
Thanks
Roy
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
