[gentoo-dev] Re: Dealing with XDG directories in ebuild environment

[Steven J. Long]

Alec Warner wrote:
> Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to change the
> behavior of *portage* now; rather than waiting for a new EAPI. If an ebuild
> needs to define EAPI=eapi-next to 'correctly' use XDG_*, well that is
> someone else's can of worms.

Agreed: portage can clear those vars from the env as mgorny stated on the bug,
and an xdg.eclass (or w/e) can setup good defaults for packages which need
them. Presumably it'd be inherited by gnome and kde eclasses, for example,
so most people wouldn't even see it.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)