On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:28:08AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Tuesday 23 August 2005 06:40, Brian Harring wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:33:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote: > > > Theoretical discussions about this are pointless IMO without > > > numbers/facts to back things up. > > > > I'd posit theroetical discussions about this are pointless without > > getting ebuild dev's to give a yay/nay on whether they want it or not; > > not much for trying to force it down their throats if they don't want > > it (more work, essentially). > > I don't really see what it has to do with ebuild devs... We're talking about > the user's environment leaking into the portage build environment, no? > Environment vars used by ebuilds can/should be set by users in a portage > configuration file rather than being added to the environment. The only > issue i see here is user customizations - fex, a hypothetical colorgcc that > gets its config info from the env. Ixnaying user env leaking in will lead to bugs where ebuilds *allow* for that, along with pissed off ebuild devs if they've not been made aware of it oncoming.
Hell, they may not even agree on the deterministic bit re: env; this would explicitly block developers from fooling with autotool vars (WANT_AUTOMAKE fex) for testing without mangling the ebuild. So yeah, I'm trying to ensure we're not screamed at for deploying what (imo) is a good change, but may piss people off if it's not stated up front (akin to glep 33). ~harring
pgpFEMfSbI52o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
