Dnia 2014-12-07, o godz. 10:33:44 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> On 12/07/2014 01:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > > Dnia 2014-12-07, o godz. 01:04:19 > > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > > > >> On 12/07/2014 12:22 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > >>> Dnia 2014-12-06, o godz. 23:15:09 > >>> Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> napisał(a): > >>> > >>>> On 12/05/2014 04:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote: > >>>>> Support SYNC_UMASK and SYNC_USER variables that were used in Funtoo > >>>>> Portage, as fallbacks to sync-umask and sync-user repo keys. > >>>>> --- > >>>>> pym/portage/package/ebuild/_config/special_env_vars.py | 2 +- > >>>>> pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py | 12 > >>>>> ++++++++++++ > >>>>> pym/portage/repository/config.py | 13 > >>>>> +++++++++++++ > >>>>> 3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>>> > >>>> Why should we add backward compatibility code for something that was > >>>> never supported in the master branch? > >>> > >>> I just thought it wouldn't hurt if we're backporting features. > >> > >> Adding extra code for new redundant variables seems undesirable. Are > >> they somehow better than using equivalent repos.conf [DEFAULT] settings > >> for sync-user and sync-mask? > > > > They're easier to set in env than the fancy PORTAGE_REPOSITORIES. > > Do these settings commonly need to be overridden in the env? I have no clue. I just don't want users to lose functionality when it doesn't require much effort (anymore, consider I've lost over an hour to figure out why settings are incomplete...). -- Best regards, Michał Górny
pgpETAjEAguB6.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
