Zac Medico wrote: > The specification is really the most important part, and you have to > give the -dev community an opportunity to participate in refining > the spec (via RFC email, GLEP, or whatnot). > > It seems like this idea will probably serve for bug 179800, which is > about allowing eclasses to register phase hooks: > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179800 > Hmm given that this relies on profile.bashrc, in specification terms one would have to ensure that http://bugs.gentoo.org/202631 (which was recently raised in #-council) were resolved. The sunrise people raised being able to tweak bashrc per-overlay in #-portage recently, and the phase hooks were also raised by javaJake wrt having directory-based hooks.
As outlined at: http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-portage-dev%40lists.gentoo.org/msg00544.html ..the phase hooks can all be done via bashrc; pre- and post-pkg need mangler support, if they cannot reasonably be implemented via existing hooks. (There were others, that seemed more appropriately handled in a wrapper, imo. Pre- and post- the whole process iirc.) OFC for that to happen, the spec needs to acknowledge that bashrc's exist so that downstream can use them in overlays, irrespective of the user's choice of package-mangler. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
