| 1 |
On 09/05/2015 02:07 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Julian Ospald <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> This is particularly useful for people who run alternative |
| 4 |
>> package managers and want to control their configuration. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency |
| 7 |
> can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doesn't change |
| 8 |
> when this moves into the package manager for EAPI6? PMS is more about |
| 9 |
> the content of the ebuilds, so presumably all package managers could |
| 10 |
> structure how patches are provided by the user in whatefver way is |
| 11 |
> most consistent with how they already operate. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Of course, PMS should not refer to directories like "/etc/portage", but |
| 15 |
I am not sure it's the place to introduce variables for users to |
| 16 |
configure their PM behavior. I'd rather expect this to be PM-specific. |
| 17 |
At that point, probably nothing will change for portage users anyway. |
| 18 |
Everything else is not within our control. |
Archives