1 |
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:52:37 +0200 |
2 |
"Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" <hkBst@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
5 |
> Hash: SHA1 |
6 |
> |
7 |
> Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: |
8 |
> > On Saturday 28 June 2008 17:03:13 Marijn Schouten (hkBst) wrote: |
9 |
> >> PV=${PV/0./} |
10 |
> >> |
11 |
> >> to that new ebuild. This is the cleanest way to do it and doesn't |
12 |
> >> require any variable name changes or any other changes to the |
13 |
> >> ebuild regardless of what it does. Unfortunately it is also |
14 |
> >> illegal per current PMS as PV is a read-only variable. Right now I |
15 |
> >> feel that the gain of having PV read-only (catch a few bugs?) is |
16 |
> >> much lower than the pain (extensive ebuild-dependend changes when |
17 |
> >> the version scheme changes). Please comment. |
18 |
> > |
19 |
> > I don't really see how making PV not read-only is any easier than |
20 |
> > using MY_PV. Did you expect changing PV to magically change P, PVR |
21 |
> > and PF too? |
22 |
> |
23 |
> If we can agree to have those values writable we could define a |
24 |
> function that will handle resetting all those too. |
25 |
|
26 |
Not going to happen. These variables are used internally by portage in |
27 |
various ways, and making their content inconsistent with the version in |
28 |
the filename is likely to cause subtle bugs and/or weird behavior. |
29 |
Besides, you've yet to explain the benefit of it, short of avoiding a |
30 |
simple replace operation in an ebuild, and the given use case isn't all |
31 |
that common anyway. |
32 |
|
33 |
Marius |
34 |
-- |
35 |
gentoo-dev@l.g.o mailing list |