Gentoo Archives: gentoo-portage-dev

From: Kristian Benoit <kbenoit@×××××××.com>
To: gentoo-portage-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Environment Whitelisting
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:38:19
Message-Id: 1124728200.6502.37.camel@localhost
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] Re: Environment Whitelisting by Zac Medico
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