1 |
On 11/13/2011 11:08 AM, Markos Chandras wrote: |
2 |
> On 11/13/2011 04:59 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
>> On Sunday 13 November 2011 05:48:40 Paweł Hajdan, Jr. wrote: |
4 |
>>> On 11/12/11 11:24 PM, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
5 |
>>>> Most devs will be unhappy as it makes it harder to view the log |
6 |
>>>> while building. |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> We can have a different default in the developer profile. |
9 |
> |
10 |
>> the original reason for not doing this via profiles in the first |
11 |
>> place was old versions of portage would barf. i think that still |
12 |
>> applies to the developer profile :(. the first version of portage |
13 |
>> to support this option was released in like ~Mar 2011. -mike |
14 |
> Yeah but can't we just assume devs have recent versions of portage? I |
15 |
> can't imagine a dev using a 6-month old portage :-/ |
16 |
|
17 |
Another problem is that the user may have another EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS |
18 |
setting which overrides EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS from the profile, unless |
19 |
they use something like EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--foo |
20 |
${EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS}" in order to explicitly inherit options from the |
21 |
profile. And no, I don't think we should make EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS into |
22 |
an "incremental" variable. I think the current behavior is just fine. |
23 |
-- |
24 |
Thanks, |
25 |
Zac |