Steve Long a écrit :
First and foremost to give an environment wherein people can write their
installation scripts using the language they are most comfortable with.
If bash is not "easy" or straightforward enough for what you are trying
to achieve, then I'd say the package is broken (ie, hand-made configure
script, odd makefiles and whatnot). Better fix the package rather than
rewriting ebuilds, make the world a better place.
Secondly efficiency; in the case of a pbuild it could be run from within the
PM; for something like a jbuild it would use the native tools and existing
libraries like ANT. For hbuild it would tie into Cabal. While these may be
used already, we go from PM -> BASH -> LangX. I'm just saying give the
_option_ to leave out the BASH bit when you have mature tools in langX.
Care to back that up with any sort of figure or number? Is bash really
the bottleneck? For 90% of the tree's ebuilds, I would _gcc_ is the
bottleneck. Then I'd bet a big lump on libtool. Not portage, not bash.
But then again, I don't have any numbers to back that up either...
Honestly, maybe it could be a fun project, but I'm hardly convinced it
would bring any sort of real advantage to the tree. In fact, having
ebuilds in many languages would probably wreak havoc more than anything
else.
My 2¢
Cheers,
Rémi
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
