| 1 |
On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 07:20:44PM -0700, Zac Medico wrote: |
| 2 |
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=85803 |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> This trivial patch seems to work for me but I'm not sure if it will cause |
| 5 |
> regressions or not. Feedback is appreciated. |
| 6 |
Questionable in relation to binpkgs; binpkg phase execution is rather |
| 7 |
haphazard/broken anyways, but... |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
question is if the build env (unpack -> install phases) needs to bleed |
| 10 |
through to the > install phases; if so, for binpkgs this change will |
| 11 |
break that. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
'protecting' the ebuild env state when setup is executed would address |
| 14 |
this bug; basically, filtering what's saved/reloaded for the env |
| 15 |
dumps. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Dunno. On the fence on this one- I went the route of just locking |
| 18 |
down chunks of the supplied ebuild*sh env, such that they were bound |
| 19 |
to the portage installation, not the ebuild's generated env; think |
| 20 |
that's the best long term solution, but it's not something that can be |
| 21 |
deployed in stable yet. |
| 22 |
~harring |
Archives