| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:44:23 -0700 Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> | Portage currently has two hard-coded lists of variables that control |
| 8 |
> | the behavior of env-update. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I realise GLEP 24 is considered not going very far, but in the |
| 11 |
> interests of what *has* been done on it... Is it worth continuing |
| 12 |
> development on env-update? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Regardless of whether or not we keep the actual env-update tool |
| 15 |
around, I think that making these variables configurable would be a |
| 16 |
good idea. It removes any lag between the time that a package |
| 17 |
maintainer needs to add a new special variable and the time that it |
| 18 |
is supported. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Zac |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 23 |
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
iD8DBQFFBaOP/ejvha5XGaMRAqR9AKC0F+Ra3Qxh8pAfdYP8h0BFv2IvtgCdHbbn |
| 26 |
I6Z1YX6yXX8SdfIreN8rbJM= |
| 27 |
=DPbS |
| 28 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives