Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Toys

[Ned Ludd]

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 18:53, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Thursday 07 October 2004 06:29, Michael Tindal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 19:57 +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 06 October 2004 12:09, Michael Tindal wrote:
> > > > The format is something like
> > > > category/pkgname CFLAGS="...";LDFLAGS="...";USE="...";FEATURES="..."
> > >
> > > Unless you like things not compiling due to missing dependencies, don't
> > > use USE in this file. Same deal with ACCEPT_KEYWORDS and anything else
> > > that could possibly affect dependencies (which is nothing that I can
> > > think of at this stage).
> >
> >  That wasn't really the point of the exercise (USE and the like).
> > Portage already has files for that, so using this for that is pointless.
> > It was more for CFLAGS and LDFLAGS and such, and the example I gave was
> > off the top of my head.
>
> No problem. I was mostly just pointing it out for the onlookers and to preempt
> invalid bug reports. Also worth pointing out is that most FEATURES would not
> be honoured as well, as bashrc is only used on the bash side of things
> whereas the python side of portage handles most of them.

Portage learns about FEATURES after it's sourced the ebuild in the
depend phase right? 
If so then it would seem that those functions-FEATURES/USE which have
todo with depgraph creation could be exported in the 'depend' phase from
a bashrc. Is my logic incorrect?
 
>
> Regards,
> Jason Stubbs
>
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@g.o>
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer