1 |
On Sun, 2005-08-21 at 21:41 -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
2 |
> Yeah, I agree that a build that is fragile with regard to environment |
3 |
> variables could be an upstream issue. The advantage of |
4 |
> white/black/override list portage feature is that it would provide a |
5 |
> way to work around these kinds of problems (until they are fixed |
6 |
> upstream). |
7 |
|
8 |
Another point of view could be that leaving the environment as is would |
9 |
help providing bugs to the upstream. But I must agree with you that |
10 |
having it optional would probably be the best thing. |
11 |
|
12 |
I think the fourth solution would be nice if we have |
13 |
a /etc/portage/package.env so that if one need to specify an non portage |
14 |
environment variable, it could be specified on a per packge basis. It |
15 |
could also be a /etc/portage/package.env.d that contain a per-package |
16 |
script that set-up the environment for that package. |
17 |
|
18 |
The script coud be called with the calling environment set a variable |
19 |
name "keep_variables" to a list of the variables that should be kept for |
20 |
that particuliar package. |
21 |
|
22 |
The calling environment could also specify a keep_variables varible so |
23 |
that we keep those variable in build environment. |
24 |
|
25 |
Kristian |
26 |
|
27 |
-- |
28 |
gentoo-portage-dev@g.o mailing list |