On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 05:52:30 +0100 Steven J Long <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm given that this relies on profile.bashrc, in specification terms > one would have to ensure that http://bugs.gentoo.org/202631 (which > was recently raised in #-council) were resolved.
No, because as you've repeatedly been told, profile.bashrc lies outside of the specification precisely to allow the kind of Portage-internals trickery that's being discussed here. > OFC for that to happen, the spec needs to acknowledge that bashrc's > exist so that downstream can use them in overlays, irrespective of > the user's choice of package-mangler. If profile.bashrc were to be specified, none of this would be legal, since it would have to restrict the contents to portable code. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
