-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Joe Peterson wrote: > However, I do see the point about the RESTRICT variable. Throwing > random flags into it does not seem ideal, and I think convenience should > take a back seat to correctness when designing, e.g., ebuild > syntax/rules. But why would using a new variable require an EAPI change > any more than adding new flags to RESTRICT? I.e., if people start using > "OPTIONS=" or "FLAGS=", it would simply be ignored by older package > manager versions, just like new RESTRICT values would be ignored. Or am > I missing something fundamental?
What you're missing is that only a specific subset of variables is cached in /usr/portage/metadata/cache. Now that you mention it, we could introduce a new variable called EBUILD_FLAGS and start caching it in new versions of portage. It wouldn't necessarily require an EAPI bump as long as it can safely be ignored by older versions of portage. Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkiWD04ACgkQ/ejvha5XGaO8JgCgv3dIDZtq/7qnmCadq7cpfUQs CNUAn334taZBgjWwM9UAxW97mEO9WCE6 =vbtT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
