| 1 |
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:33:11 -0700 |
| 2 |
Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > If profile.bashrc is to be kept, it means massively reducing what |
| 4 |
> > can be done in there. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Restraint in use of profile.bashrc is a per community QA measure, not |
| 7 |
> a format restriction- think through the other "this is better for QA" |
| 8 |
> things I've suggested PMS wise, you've responded in the same manner. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Except that if profile.bashrc can tinker with package manager |
| 11 |
internals, it has to be done in such a way that it works with all |
| 12 |
package managers. So it has to be either Portage-specific or extremely |
| 13 |
constrained. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> > > * doesn't address versioning changes. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > Or indeed any change where the ebuild can't be visible to older |
| 18 |
> > package managers without breaking them. |
| 19 |
> > |
| 20 |
> > So basically it's not a solution at all. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Name a scenario. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You already named one, and tried to gloss it over as not being the |
| 25 |
complete showstopper that it is. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives