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