| 1 |
Steven J Long wrote: |
| 2 |
> Zac Medico wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> The specification is really the most important part, and you have to |
| 5 |
>> give the -dev community an opportunity to participate in refining |
| 6 |
>> the spec (via RFC email, GLEP, or whatnot). |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> It seems like this idea will probably serve for bug 179800, which is |
| 9 |
>> about allowing eclasses to register phase hooks: |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179800 |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
> Hmm given that this relies on profile.bashrc, in specification terms one |
| 14 |
> would have to ensure that http://bugs.gentoo.org/202631 (which was recently |
| 15 |
> raised in #-council) were resolved. The sunrise people raised being able to |
| 16 |
> tweak bashrc per-overlay in #-portage recently, and the phase hooks were |
| 17 |
> also raised by javaJake wrt having directory-based hooks. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
For the overlay people, it seems like we need something that's a |
| 20 |
little different from the existing profile support, since profile's |
| 21 |
are user-selectable and it seems like you want something that's |
| 22 |
global/mandatory at the repository level. For example, it could be |
| 23 |
located at profiles/profile.bashrc, similar to |
| 24 |
profiles.package.mask, which is global/mandatory rather than being |
| 25 |
part of a specific user-selectable profile. |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Thanks, |
| 28 |
Zac |
Archives