On Monday 01 of December 2008 22:51:57 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > Experience, manpower, the ability to try out potential enhancements > rapidly, a long track record of getting it right and the growing > recognition that most people doing package manager work for Gentoo > aren't doing it with Portage.
While of course I agree that any input from 'outside' is welcome and valuable,
yet to get things done, in my opinion the final decision should not be blocked
by from any alternative package manager and some policies should be enforced.
But on topic, what's a counter proposal for my idea then?
Quick search in archives gave me some results I don't particularly like, like
the idea with /etc/portage/packages.cflags and /etc/portage/package.env, and
they have been dropped for similar reasons - as the former needs special
parsing instead just sourcing the script (the problem is that someone needs to
implement this - this is usually the problem, especially in pure volunteer
projects like Gentoo), the latter looks a bit messy to me. /etc/portage/env
would be the best approach when made officially supported (recently it looks
like /etc/portage/env is sourced multiple times and that should be fixed, for
convenience, just in case user wants to put:
CFLAGS="-O0 -ggdb"
CXXFLAGS="${CFLAGS}"
FEATURES="${FEATURES} nostrip"
(or even USE="${USE} debug")
actually /etc/portage/env could easily replace package.keywords and
package.use as well and introduce replacement for meybe-proposed-sometime
package.features - I wonder whether it's been discussed already.
--
regards
MM
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
