| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Joe Peterson wrote: |
| 5 |
> However, I do see the point about the RESTRICT variable. Throwing |
| 6 |
> random flags into it does not seem ideal, and I think convenience should |
| 7 |
> take a back seat to correctness when designing, e.g., ebuild |
| 8 |
> syntax/rules. But why would using a new variable require an EAPI change |
| 9 |
> any more than adding new flags to RESTRICT? I.e., if people start using |
| 10 |
> "OPTIONS=" or "FLAGS=", it would simply be ignored by older package |
| 11 |
> manager versions, just like new RESTRICT values would be ignored. Or am |
| 12 |
> I missing something fundamental? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
What you're missing is that only a specific subset of variables is |
| 15 |
cached in /usr/portage/metadata/cache. Now that you mention it, we |
| 16 |
could introduce a new variable called EBUILD_FLAGS and start caching |
| 17 |
it in new versions of portage. It wouldn't necessarily require an |
| 18 |
EAPI bump as long as it can safely be ignored by older versions of |
| 19 |
portage. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Zac |
| 22 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 23 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkiWD04ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaO8JgCgv3dIDZtq/7qnmCadq7cpfUQs |
| 26 |
CNUAn334taZBgjWwM9UAxW97mEO9WCE6 |
| 27 |
=vbtT |
| 28 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives