[gentoo-dev] Re: summary: proposed solutions to arches/stable problem

[Duncan]

Aron Griffis posted <20040624045157.GH18367@××××××××××××××××.org>,
excerpted below,  on Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:51:57 -0400:

> Jason Huebel wrote:	[Tue Jun 22 2004, 09:06:29PM EDT]
>> Another possible solution that hasn't been considered is adding another
>> variable to ebuilds, like so:
>>
>> STABLE="yes"
>
> Not a bad suggestion.  The only thing I don't like is adding another
> variable.  But perhaps it's better than the other options presented so
> far.  I'll consider this in my next round-up.  Thanks.  :-)

What about namespace pollution?  Theoretically, some make file somewhere
might use something that generic.

What about something like gStable=yes, or GENSTABLE=yes?  These make it
*FAR* more unlikely there'll be an accidental namespace collision.

Also, are we going to support the general boolean (or tristate, if one
includes no mark) flexibility of yes/true/1 vs no/false/0?  Or will it
HAVE to be "yes" or "no"?

...

I'm not a Gentoo dev (yet, possibly documentation at some point.. someone
mentioned I might be good at it.. and I DID check the Gentoo development
policy and social contract first thing as I began to investigate Gentoo,
because I intend to be active wherever I'm at, and I'm moving to Gentoo
now), and not particularly good at development per se either, but not
considering namespace pollution in a case such as this just seems to go
against everything I've ever learned on the subject, and given that I was
recently reading comments in the xorg ebuild indicating a similar problem
with it (probably as XFree86) at one point (MAKE_OPTS with or without the
_), using Gentoo namespace specific env-vars should be a basic policy.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --
Benjamin Franklin



--
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list