Re: Portage per-package environment/behavior

On Sun, 1 Jan 2012 08:59:25 +0000
Sven Vermeulen <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 07:13:59PM -0800, Joshua Saddler wrote:
> > per-package cflags has never been an officially supported portage
> > feature. in fact, it's mostly been an env hack that users have
> > been actively discouraged from using. they can expect to see bugs
> > closed RESO WONTFIX when per-package cflag monkeying has been
> > detected. as such, we shouldn't be documenting how to do it.
> 
> I disagree. It is actively being suggested on #gentoo, and we
> already document features that could (or even will) result in
> RESO:WONTFIX, like using ~arch (both for a small set of packages as
> well as the entire system).

and who's suggesting it on #gentoo? users? devs? we need to talk to
the portage team and anyone else that would have to troubleshoot
build fixes caused by (ab)using it. if we get the okay from them,
then something like your proposed text should be added to the
handbook.

> I would rather have a <warn> in place then that sais it will hinder
> support during bug reports and might result in RESO:WONTFIX unless
> the user removes the specific settings and rebuilds with the system
> ones.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk8B/V8ACgkQxPWMzpKk6kO5DACeOqTF5xr1tI4bbcUH7DP8cZea
D9UAn1ai8yqjX+ph2sA3Ij+9ddDQrvP/
=BjyS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----