| 1 |
Zac, Michal, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Would you be willing to merge this ? |
| 4 |
If env/ instead of package.env is a deal breaker, I can change that. |
| 5 |
A bashrc like mechanism is more practical for us but package.env will do |
| 6 |
the trick too |
| 7 |
and we really want to have this in mainline portage. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Thanks, |
| 10 |
Bertrand |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Bertrand Simonnet <bsimonnet@××××××.com> |
| 13 |
wrote: |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> For my purpose, I think bash scripting would be more useful. I thought |
| 16 |
> about package.env |
| 17 |
> in the beginning (see first few messages on this thread) as it would help |
| 18 |
> us reuse code but |
| 19 |
> variable setting only will limit what we can do. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> If you want package.env, we can implement it too and have both mechanisms |
| 22 |
> available. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Thanks, |
| 25 |
> Bertrand |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>> Dnia 2014-09-17, o godz. 14:57:10 |
| 30 |
>> Bertrand Simonnet <bsimonnet@××××××.com> napisał(a): |
| 31 |
>> |
| 32 |
>> > I'd rather use the env/ mechanism instead of the package.env one as it |
| 33 |
>> is |
| 34 |
>> > more flexible. |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> It depends on what you aim to do. As portage(5) points out, both have |
| 37 |
>> their advantages: |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
>> - package.env is parsed early, and so allows you override more |
| 40 |
>> variables, like FEATURES, |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> - env/ is used as bashrc extension. |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> The other difference is that package.env supports any atom syntax that |
| 45 |
>> the particular EAPI supports, while env/ has hardcoded list of |
| 46 |
>> possibilities. |
| 47 |
>> |
| 48 |
>> -- |
| 49 |
>> Best regards, |
| 50 |
>> Michał Górny |
| 51 |
>> |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> |
Archives