-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joe Peterson wrote:
> I'm not sure the "EBUILD_" in "EBUILD_FLAGS" would be necessary
> (redundant?).  Maybe even "OPTIONS" or "PROPERTIES" makes more sense.
> In fact, "FLAGS" might be a little too generic, even?  Worth a short
> discussion.

One potential issue with using a short generic name is the potential
for variable name collisions. It's mainly an issue if we want to
mark the variable readonly during normal ebuild phases. If the
variable is marked readonly then bash will not allow that variable
name to be used as either a global or a _local_ variable. Maybe it
doesn't really matter though.

Zac
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkiWKuYACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPdgQCfXyDdAPN22+Jn/szjD0zG99eH
xqgAn28jCCmEOLoKfKSspbJbGskUwjtI
=rDmY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----