| 1 |
On 09/22/2014 11:16 AM, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/22/2014 09:16 AM, Bertrand Simonnet wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Zac, Michal, |
| 4 |
>> |
| 5 |
>> Would you be willing to merge this ? |
| 6 |
>> If env/ instead of package.env is a deal breaker, I can change that. |
| 7 |
>> A bashrc like mechanism is more practical for us but package.env will do |
| 8 |
>> the trick too |
| 9 |
>> and we really want to have this in mainline portage. |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> Thanks, |
| 12 |
>> Bertrand |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> In order to solve Michał's concern about the "hardcoded list of atoms", |
| 15 |
> we might choose this slightly different approach: |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> In python, parse package.env atom/file associations from the profile, |
| 18 |
> and pass the associated file names to bash as array, so that those files |
| 19 |
> can be sourced by bash. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Thoughts? |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Also, note that with this hybrid bashrc like approach, you still won't |
| 25 |
be able to adjust FEATURES. However, I'm not so sure that per-package |
| 26 |
FEATURES adjustment is really that useful at the profile level. |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Thanks, |
| 29 |
Zac |
Archives