| 1 |
Stuart Herbert <stuart@g.o> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Like I said, it would only have to ask for information that wasn't available |
| 4 |
> from the cache of answers. Provided there was a tool to pre-edit the cache - |
| 5 |
> something I suggested earlier - then your scenarios would work. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I would agree with Marius in saying that ebuilds should not by default |
| 8 |
be interactive. Furthermore, I dislike the idea of a cache because it |
| 9 |
makes the configuration data more obscure to the user. Provided that |
| 10 |
the generic facility of package-specific environment variables in the |
| 11 |
same style as package-specific USE flags is added to Portage, |
| 12 |
environment variables specified in /etc/portage/whatever are sufficient |
| 13 |
for specifying the configuration. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
It would be useful for ebuilds to be able to specify a check function |
| 16 |
which runs prior to merging any packages (possibly based on an option to |
| 17 |
emerge). This would allow the ebuild to fail immediately, informing the |
| 18 |
user of what is required, if a valid configuration is not specified in |
| 19 |
environment variables. Furthermore, I would like to see immediate |
| 20 |
failure if a license must be explicitly accepted and is not in |
| 21 |
ACCEPT_LICENSES; I find the interactive prompting to accept licenses |
| 22 |
problematic for the same reasons as interactive configuration prompting |
| 23 |
is problematic. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives