Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Refactoring ebuild.sh

2006-08-28 Thread Simon Stelling
Brian Harring wrote: >>> Further, all of these are still overridable by *bashrc and env. >> How? > readonly -f . > bashrc, env, etc, all can force different definitions of functions. > > This is why ebd sets it's required functions and marks them readonly > *before* it even goes near ebuild dat

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Refactoring ebuild.sh

2006-08-27 Thread Brian Harring
On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 10:26:28AM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Brian Harring wrote: > >>diefunc() > >>dump_trace() > > > > these are general utility, not debugging. > > Where would you stick them? 'die' to 'ebuild helpers' and 'dump_trace' > to 'internals'? util, same for hasq. > > I

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Refactoring ebuild.sh

2006-08-27 Thread Simon Stelling
Brian Harring wrote: > categorization is a bit whonky in a few spots- I won't fight that. It was pretty hard to categorize functions that I've never really noticed before ;) >> Debugging: >> register_die_hook() > > ebuild specific func, while debugging, it's not ebuild.sh debugging. > >>

Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Refactoring ebuild.sh

2006-08-26 Thread Brian Harring
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 07:54:41PM +0200, Simon Stelling wrote: > Hi all, > > ebuild.sh is a mess. There are a lot of functions scattered to the four > winds. Searching for a function in ebuild.sh takes a lot of time, and it > is very tiring to scroll down huge chunks of totally unrelated function