Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Dealing with XDG directories in ebuild environment
Le mardi 28 janvier 2014 à 13:11 +, Steven J. Long a écrit : Alec Warner 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. Agreed: portage can clear those vars from the env as mgorny stated on the bug, and an xdg.eclass (or w/e) can setup good defaults for packages which need them. Presumably it'd be inherited by gnome and kde eclasses, for example, so most people wouldn't even see it. Exactly. -- Gilles Dartiguelongue e...@gentoo.org Gentoo
[gentoo-dev] Re: Dealing with XDG directories in ebuild environment
Alec Warner 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. Agreed: portage can clear those vars from the env as mgorny stated on the bug, and an xdg.eclass (or w/e) can setup good defaults for packages which need them. Presumably it'd be inherited by gnome and kde eclasses, for example, so most people wouldn't even see it. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
