| 1 |
On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 06:49:39 -0400 |
| 2 |
Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 5 |
> > On Wednesday 07 June 2006 19:12, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> >>I would be more concerned with convincing the rest of the |
| 8 |
> >>developers. adding crap in base profile.bashrc will affect 99% of |
| 9 |
> >>users, so it better be friggin correct and useful, otherwise you |
| 10 |
> >>will piss a ton of people off. |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > versus the people who are really annoyed that such support hasnt |
| 14 |
> > yet been integrated into portage proper ? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > yes, from the portage side of things, it may be a pita to implement |
| 17 |
> > per-package env ... but from the user side of things, it's a huge |
| 18 |
> > help -mike |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> My e-mail was basically worded as to say "Solar paste your crap to |
| 21 |
> this ML." Is there any reason you need package.env in portage proper |
| 22 |
> as opposed to bashrc? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I remember portage people asserting before that package.env tricks from |
| 26 |
bashrc don't work completely, in that it needs to be in place for |
| 27 |
portage.py before the bashrc script is sourced. Is this no longer a |
| 28 |
problem? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
Kevin F. Quinn |
Archives