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

Zac Medico wrote:
> Joe Peterson wrote:
>> However, I do see the point about the RESTRICT variable.  Throwing
>> random flags into it does not seem ideal, and I think convenience should
>> take a back seat to correctness when designing, e.g., ebuild
>> syntax/rules.  But why would using a new variable require an EAPI change
>> any more than adding new flags to RESTRICT?  I.e., if people start using
>> "OPTIONS=" or "FLAGS=", it would simply be ignored by older package
>> manager versions, just like new RESTRICT values would be ignored.  Or am
>> I missing something fundamental?
> 
> What you're missing is that only a specific subset of variables is
> cached in /usr/portage/metadata/cache. Now that you mention it, we
> could introduce a new variable called EBUILD_FLAGS and start caching
> it in new versions of portage. It wouldn't necessarily require an
> EAPI bump as long as it can safely be ignored by older versions of
> portage.
> 
> Zac

Oh and by the way, I should mention that it might not be worth it to
add a whole new variable. I think RESTRICT="live-sources" is a
perfectly fine, especially considering the the existing
RESTRICT="primaryuri" value is similar in some ways, including
perceived polarity. If we do decide to add a new variable then
perhaps we should move primaryuri to the new variable as well, for
consistency.

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkiWGY0ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPGlQCgiDvulaAgLqdHXyoFVPPXdF6t
22gAnAiUNyY4fbmCl2WeapH3n7g1Y/8A
=l90F
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----