[sbopkg-users] Installed packages and queue files

[Pierre Cazenave]

Mauro Giachero wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM, Pierre Cazenave <pwcazenave at gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> I realise that this is likely to increase the time taken to process queue
>> files which is why in some ways having this as a command-line only option
>> might be easier. That way, the default behaviour within the dialog-based
>> interface remains unchanged, but the possibility exists to omit those files
>> when called as sbopkg -i.
>>
>> I'll see if I can hack a patch together to incorporate this functionality,
>> though it's likely to take me a while to get my head around the code as it
>> stands.
>>
>> Please don't think I'm criticising sbopkg - I use it almost every day and
>> it's made my life significantly easier!
> 
> 
> I never did, and I appreciate your feedback. Sorry if I sounded harsh.

You didn't, but the internet being what it is, I wasn't sure how things 
I was saying were coming across. It seems we both did!

> 
> 
>> Thanks to you all,
> 
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> 
>> Pierre
>>
>> P.S. Has any consideration been given to "outsourcing" some of the slower
>> tasks (like checking for updates) to separate python scripts, then calling
>> those as functions from sbopkg? I imagine that python would do the string
>> comparison very quickly indeed...
> 
> 
> There has been some resistance to using a different language (and, IIRC,
> Python has been mentioned before). The rationale usually was:
> - we'd have to learn another language (I don't know Python yet)
> - Python is not part of a minimal Slackware install (that is, you can set up
> a Slackware install without Python, but Bash is always assumed to be
> available).
> 
> I personally would love to learn Python (it's in my TODO pile), 

<snip>

It's been on my TODO list for a while too, so a practical reason to 
learn it would be nice! :)

> but looks
> like there are people appreciating that sbopkg has very minimal software
> requirements, so I don't think this is going to happen.

Perhaps a

use_python_functions=0
which python > /dev/null 2>&1 || use_python_functions=1

at the beginning of the script could enable/disable the python functions?

But like you say, the benefits are probably small compared to just using 
pure bash.

> 
> [Now I'm going to seek for food, or I'll have to dinner with rosemary (it's
> 7.20pm here). I'll reply to any follow-up later :-)]
> 

Enjoy your meal. It's 6.30pm here, and I'm feeling hungry too now!