| 1 |
Sounds good :) |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
Michal, would that work for you ? If so, I'll start on it tomorrow. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
> On 09/22/2014 11:43 AM, Bertrand Simonnet wrote: |
| 8 |
> > Did you mean env/ files ? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Yes. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> > Having a different behaviour for |
| 13 |
> > /etc/portage/package.env and $profile/package.env would be confusing. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> We could call package.bashenv (or something like that), in order to make |
| 16 |
> the difference from package.env clear. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> > Parsing env/ atom/files association in python would be a good idea. We |
| 19 |
> > should get the benefits of both I believe. |
| 20 |
> > The list of files to be sourced by bash could contain all the files |
| 21 |
> > relevant to the package in one profile then profile.bashrc, for each |
| 22 |
> > profile so that |
| 23 |
> > we don't even need to walk all the profiles in ebuild.sh. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Right, that's what I was thinking. |
| 26 |
> -- |
| 27 |
> Thanks, |
| 28 |
> Zac |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> |
Archives