-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Zac Medico wrote: > Joe Peterson wrote: >> However, I do see the point about the RESTRICT variable. Throwing >> random flags into it does not seem ideal, and I think convenience should >> take a back seat to correctness when designing, e.g., ebuild >> syntax/rules. But why would using a new variable require an EAPI change >> any more than adding new flags to RESTRICT? I.e., if people start using >> "OPTIONS=" or "FLAGS=", it would simply be ignored by older package >> manager versions, just like new RESTRICT values would be ignored. Or am >> I missing something fundamental? > > What you're missing is that only a specific subset of variables is > cached in /usr/portage/metadata/cache. Now that you mention it, we > could introduce a new variable called EBUILD_FLAGS and start caching > it in new versions of portage. It wouldn't necessarily require an > EAPI bump as long as it can safely be ignored by older versions of > portage. > > Zac
Oh and by the way, I should mention that it might not be worth it to add a whole new variable. I think RESTRICT="live-sources" is a perfectly fine, especially considering the the existing RESTRICT="primaryuri" value is similar in some ways, including perceived polarity. If we do decide to add a new variable then perhaps we should move primaryuri to the new variable as well, for consistency. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkiWGY0ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPGlQCgiDvulaAgLqdHXyoFVPPXdF6t 22gAnAiUNyY4fbmCl2WeapH3n7g1Y/8A =l90F -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
