[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: stacking profile.bashrc?

[Steven J Long]

Zac Medico wrote:

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

Yeah sounds right. Perhaps a per-category bashrc split (both for
usual /etc/portage case and for overlays) might also be useful?
(Overlay admin can always test PN should the need arise.)

You mentioned in #-portage that per-phase execution is no longer used, wrt
how overlays would only be executing bashrc at start. I take it we can
still test $EBUILD_PHASE? (Sorry if I've misunderstood what you were
saying.)
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)