On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800 Alec Warner <anta...@gentoo.org> wrote: > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to > change the behavior of *portage* now; rather than waiting for a new > EAPI. If an ebuild needs to define EAPI=eapi-next to 'correctly' use > XDG_*, well that is someone else's can of worms.
Changing Portage to hide the issue is a bad idea, since it makes it harder for developers to notice that that's a problem they need to fix. Although maybe you could set XDG_* to something that will give a big noisy sandbox violation for current EAPIs? -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
