On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:20:06 +0200
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@g.o> wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Marius Mauch wrote:
> > On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:37 +0200
> > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@g.o> wrote:
> > 
> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >> Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> >>> On Saturday 28 June 2008 17:03:13 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote:
> >>>> PV=${PV/0./}
> >>>>
> >>>> to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't
> >>>> require any variable name changes or any other changes to the
> >>>> ebuild regardless of what it does. Unfortunately it is also
> >>>> illegal per current PMS as PV is a read-only variable. Right now
> >>>> I feel that the gain of having PV read-only (catch a few bugs?)
> >>>> is much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend changes
> >>>> when the version scheme changes). Please comment.
> >>> I don't really see how making PV not read-only is any easier than
> >>> using MY_PV. Did you expect changing PV to magically change P, PVR
> >>> and PF too?
> >> If we can agree to have those values writable we could define a
> >> function that will handle resetting all those too.
> > 
> > Not going to happen. These variables are used internally by portage
> > in various ways, and making their content inconsistent with the
> > version in the filename is likely to cause subtle bugs and/or weird
> > behavior. Besides, you've yet to explain the benefit of it, short
> > of avoiding a simple replace operation in an ebuild, and the given
> > use case isn't all that common anyway.
> 
> Why can't portage use its own variables and export these with an
> initial value but not use them further?

Because there is no need to create even more variables when there is
absolutely no benefit.

Marius
--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list