| 1 |
Duncan wrote: [Thu Jun 24 2004, 07:48:23AM EDT] |
| 2 |
> Aron Griffis posted <20040624045157.GH18367@××××××××××××××××.org>, |
| 3 |
> excerpted below, on Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:51:57 -0400: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > Jason Huebel wrote: [Tue Jun 22 2004, 09:06:29PM EDT] |
| 6 |
> >> Another possible solution that hasn't been considered is adding another |
| 7 |
> >> variable to ebuilds, like so: |
| 8 |
> >> |
| 9 |
> >> STABLE="yes" |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Not a bad suggestion. The only thing I don't like is adding another |
| 12 |
> > variable. But perhaps it's better than the other options presented so |
| 13 |
> > far. I'll consider this in my next round-up. Thanks. :-) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> What about namespace pollution? Theoretically, some make file somewhere |
| 16 |
> might use something that generic. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Namespace pollution isn't an issue here. The variables declared at |
| 19 |
the top of an ebuild aren't exported to the environment so they are |
| 20 |
"invisible" to configure, make, scripts, etc. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
That's not the case for CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS and a few others which are |
| 23 |
specifically exported. But most of the variables (like STABLE) are |
| 24 |
purely shell variables, not available to sub-processes. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Regards, |
| 27 |
Aron |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Aron Griffis |
| 31 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
Archives