On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:59:59 +0100 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27 >> Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com> napisał(a): >> > 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? >> >> Yes, because instantly breaking a few dozen ebuilds in stable tree for >> the sake of proving a point is always a good idea. > > It's not about proving a point, it's about fixing existing bugs. It's > changing a hard-to-see error into an easy-to-see error, so that it can > be fixed more quickly. This change would introduce no new breakage, > since anything affected by it is already broken. >
Most people do not have XDG_CONFIG_HOME, etc. set in their environment, so having the package manager set it to something that intentionally breaks ebuilds is a step backward for most end users. It would really nice to have a solution for the few users who do have this set that does not involve adding code to random eclasses, or leaving things broken for X months/years until all ebuilds can be bumped to EAPI 6.
