| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Thursday 24 June 2004 06:48 am, Duncan wrote: |
| 5 |
> What about namespace pollution? Theoretically, some make file somewhere |
| 6 |
> might use something that generic. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> What about something like gStable=yes, or GENSTABLE=yes? These make it |
| 9 |
> *FAR* more unlikely there'll be an accidental namespace collision. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Also, are we going to support the general boolean (or tristate, if one |
| 12 |
> includes no mark) flexibility of yes/true/1 vs no/false/0? Or will it |
| 13 |
> HAVE to be "yes" or "no"? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Sure, STABLE was just an example. GENSTABLE, GENTOO_STABLE or EBUILD_STABLE |
| 16 |
or any combination/iteration of that would work. The point is mainly just to |
| 17 |
avoid changing the behaviour of KEYWORDS, which in turn unnecessarily affects |
| 18 |
users on a simple QA issue. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
- -- |
| 21 |
Jason Huebel |
| 22 |
Gentoo/amd64 Strategic Lead |
| 23 |
Gentoo Developer Relations/Recruiter |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
GPG Public Key: |
| 26 |
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9BA9E230 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
"Do not weep; do not wax indignant. Understand." |
| 29 |
Baruch Spinoza (1632 - 1677) |
| 30 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 31 |
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
iD8DBQFA2waObNgbbJup4jARArG4AJ9verlYi1NuneyPOGOb4HO5QOAnNACfS+DA |
| 34 |
n5zXXTVclr3gmxW1dboJ9SA= |
| 35 |
=y/4F |
| 36 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives