Guillem Jover: > On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 14:43:08 +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > Guillem Jover: > > > > How about naming the field “Environment-Variables”? > > > > > > Hmm, or Environment, or Build-Environment, which reminds me that I've > > > found the usage of Build-Environment (as the list of transitively > > > required packages) slightly confusing, precisely because the first > > > thing that comes to mind with environment is the variable space. > > > > > > Perhaps we should consider renaming that one? Say Build-Packages (but > > > that might be confusing), Build-Depends-Used, or something else? We > > > also already have a Built-Using field too (although for source > > > packages not binary ones, with a name I've also found slightly > > > confusing as being too generic). > > > > Ok. What about “Environment” for the variables, > > I'm not sure if it'd be better to be explicit about this being a build > thing, and not just a random environment. Are you worried about confusion > with the previous usage of the field with the same name?
I'm indeed worry about confusion. The file is called '.buildinfo', so I
think it's fine to imply that these were environment variables defined
during the time the .buildinfo was generated.
.
/ \ We have entered
/ ! \ bike shedding territory
~~~~~
--
Lunar .''`.
lu...@debian.org : :Ⓐ : # apt-get install anarchism
`. `'`
`-
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
