-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Joe Peterson wrote: > I'm not sure the "EBUILD_" in "EBUILD_FLAGS" would be necessary > (redundant?). Maybe even "OPTIONS" or "PROPERTIES" makes more sense. > In fact, "FLAGS" might be a little too generic, even? Worth a short > discussion.
One potential issue with using a short generic name is the potential for variable name collisions. It's mainly an issue if we want to mark the variable readonly during normal ebuild phases. If the variable is marked readonly then bash will not allow that variable name to be used as either a global or a _local_ variable. Maybe it doesn't really matter though. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkiWKuYACgkQ/ejvha5XGaPdgQCfXyDdAPN22+Jn/szjD0zG99eH xqgAn28jCCmEOLoKfKSspbJbGskUwjtI =rDmY -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
