| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Zac Medico wrote: |
| 5 |
> Joe Peterson wrote: |
| 6 |
>> However, I do see the point about the RESTRICT variable. Throwing |
| 7 |
>> random flags into it does not seem ideal, and I think convenience should |
| 8 |
>> take a back seat to correctness when designing, e.g., ebuild |
| 9 |
>> syntax/rules. But why would using a new variable require an EAPI change |
| 10 |
>> any more than adding new flags to RESTRICT? I.e., if people start using |
| 11 |
>> "OPTIONS=" or "FLAGS=", it would simply be ignored by older package |
| 12 |
>> manager versions, just like new RESTRICT values would be ignored. Or am |
| 13 |
>> I missing something fundamental? |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> What you're missing is that only a specific subset of variables is |
| 16 |
> cached in /usr/portage/metadata/cache. Now that you mention it, we |
| 17 |
> could introduce a new variable called EBUILD_FLAGS and start caching |
| 18 |
> it in new versions of portage. It wouldn't necessarily require an |
| 19 |
> EAPI bump as long as it can safely be ignored by older versions of |
| 20 |
> portage. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Zac |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Oh and by the way, I should mention that it might not be worth it to |
| 25 |
add a whole new variable. I think RESTRICT="live-sources" is a |
| 26 |
perfectly fine, especially considering the the existing |
| 27 |
RESTRICT="primaryuri" value is similar in some ways, including |
| 28 |
perceived polarity. If we do decide to add a new variable then |
| 29 |
perhaps we should move primaryuri to the new variable as well, for |
| 30 |
consistency. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
Zac |
| 33 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 34 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkiWGY0ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPGlQCgiDvulaAgLqdHXyoFVPPXdF6t |
| 37 |
22gAnAiUNyY4fbmCl2WeapH3n7g1Y/8A |
| 38 |
=l90F |
| 39 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives