| 1 |
On Monday 01 of December 2008 22:51:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Experience, manpower, the ability to try out potential enhancements |
| 4 |
> rapidly, a long track record of getting it right and the growing |
| 5 |
> recognition that most people doing package manager work for Gentoo |
| 6 |
> aren't doing it with Portage. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
While of course I agree that any input from 'outside' is welcome and valuable, |
| 9 |
yet to get things done, in my opinion the final decision should not be blocked |
| 10 |
by from any alternative package manager and some policies should be enforced. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
But on topic, what's a counter proposal for my idea then? |
| 13 |
Quick search in archives gave me some results I don't particularly like, like |
| 14 |
the idea with /etc/portage/packages.cflags and /etc/portage/package.env, and |
| 15 |
they have been dropped for similar reasons - as the former needs special |
| 16 |
parsing instead just sourcing the script (the problem is that someone needs to |
| 17 |
implement this - this is usually the problem, especially in pure volunteer |
| 18 |
projects like Gentoo), the latter looks a bit messy to me. /etc/portage/env |
| 19 |
would be the best approach when made officially supported (recently it looks |
| 20 |
like /etc/portage/env is sourced multiple times and that should be fixed, for |
| 21 |
convenience, just in case user wants to put: |
| 22 |
CFLAGS="-O0 -ggdb" |
| 23 |
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}" |
| 24 |
FEATURES="${FEATURES} nostrip" |
| 25 |
(or even USE="${USE} debug") |
| 26 |
actually /etc/portage/env could easily replace package.keywords and |
| 27 |
package.use as well and introduce replacement for meybe-proposed-sometime |
| 28 |
package.features - I wonder whether it's been discussed already. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
regards |
| 32 |
MM |
Archives