Re: ebuilds in XML

Well, I was thinking of XML in ebuilds as an expressive language which=20
everybody should be able to understand by everyone - wether he is or he isn=
't=20
a developer. I know a lot of you think, that the classical ebuild format is=
=20
quite ok; but when I am thinking back of my first attempt to write an ebuil=
d=20
for Mercury i think, there really is the need to develop a package format=20
which is easily to understand for everyone.

There are a lot of "normal" Gentoo-Users out there who miss their favorite =
app=20
in portage-tree. But they can't write an ebuild because they don't understa=
nd=20
the format.

Why translate it into a bash-script? - Well, for some packages there might =
be=20
the need to insert some regular bash-code into the ebuild-script. If those=
=20
ebuilds would be translated into a shell script, there would't bee the need=
=20
to write an extra interpreter for the scripts.


=2D-=20

Benjamin Judas
Schlo=DFgasse 51

35325 M=FCcke
GERMANY

Public-Key:
http://blackhole.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup?op

ICQ: 239829549