Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>
To: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with XDG directories in ebuild environment
Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:04:02
Message-Id: 20140126220347.720b12ed@googlemail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with XDG directories in ebuild environment by "Michał Górny"
1 On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:59:59 +0100
2 Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
3 > Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27
4 > Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> napisał(a):
5 > > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800
6 > > Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote:
7 > > > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to
8 > > > change the behavior of *portage* now; rather than waiting for a
9 > > > new EAPI. If an ebuild needs to define EAPI=eapi-next to
10 > > > 'correctly' use XDG_*, well that is someone else's can of worms.
11 > >
12 > > Changing Portage to hide the issue is a bad idea, since it makes it
13 > > harder for developers to notice that that's a problem they need to
14 > > fix. Although maybe you could set XDG_* to something that will give
15 > > a big noisy sandbox violation for current EAPIs?
16 >
17 > Yes, because instantly breaking a few dozen ebuilds in stable tree for
18 > the sake of proving a point is always a good idea.
19
20 It's not about proving a point, it's about fixing existing bugs. It's
21 changing a hard-to-see error into an easy-to-see error, so that it can
22 be fixed more quickly. This change would introduce no new breakage,
23 since anything affected by it is already broken.
24
25 --
26 Ciaran McCreesh

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies