| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> I believe that's the way it is now, yes. Thus what we're proposing would |
| 3 |
> simply keep the legacy meaning for world (and system) as they are, while |
| 4 |
> @world (and @system) would refer to the specific sets. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Now that it has been suggested, I do believe that's the simplest way to |
| 7 |
> handle it, since it would involve no change at all for the existing |
| 8 |
> words. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
One could avoid the confusion about world != @world completely, |
| 11 |
if one would simply rename @world into e.g. @worldfile |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Then one could define without any ambiguity |
| 14 |
world = @world = @worldfile + @system |
| 15 |
(and of course, one should then let @system not be a @worldfile candidate, |
| 16 |
at least by default). |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I am aware that currently @world is already implemented, but only in |
| 19 |
testing portage and probably not too many user scripts have been converted |
| 20 |
to this already (resp. _if_ they have been converted, they have most |
| 21 |
probably been converted from "world" to "@world @system" which would |
| 22 |
not harm either). |
Archives