Ciaran McCreesh posted on Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:10:20 +0100 as excerpted: > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:01:28 +0300 Samuli Suominen > <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On 27/08/12 10:25, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >> > On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 10:18:17 +0300 Samuli Suominen >> > <ssuomi...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> why leave the ebuild read $myconf from global scope? $EXTRA_ECONF >> >> works for this >> > >> > As far as ebuilds are concerned, there is no such thing as >> > EXTRA_ECONF. >> > >> > >> you mean to say PMS fails to document it? > > No, I mean to say that PMS was deliberately written to follow Gentoo > policy at the time it was written, which said that EXTRA_* is considered > to be there specifically for user use, and mustn't be used by ebuilds.
The way I read it, that was the original point, that myconf was being included but was never set, so the only way it would be set if it were imported from the user's environment, and that wasn't necessary since the existing EXTRA_ECONF mechanism already handles that transparently to the ebuild. But maybe I'm reading it wrong... >> not a problem for users of the official package manager. > > Cut it out. The Council makes the rules, not you, and the Council says > that PMS, not what works with one particular Portage version, dictates > what ebuilds can and cannot do. The whole "waah waah, I'm not only > ignoring PMS, but I'm going to post to the mailing lists moaning about > it" thing is getting old. Well, the whole argument is old, on both sides. I agree, PMS is council blessed so gentoo devs shouldn't be moaning about it, but OTOH, I can't always blame them, when the way it's used is often as a club over the head that seems to appear out of nowhere and with no explanation of WHY it's that way. That's not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people, as they say, so a bit of moaning over it isn't exactly surprising. You're correct that ebuilds shouldn't be using EXTRA_ECONF as it's reserved for the user to use, but all you said was that ebuilds shouldn't use it, not why... until AFTER someone protested. Had you said WHY they shouldn't use it in your original post, adding all of one additional sentence, then the usage of PMS wouldn't have appeared to be a club out of nowhere, with no explanation. If that was done /consistently/ then people wouldn't have such sore noggins from being clubbed over the head all the time, and they'd probably react a lot more favorably to mentions of PMS. But I DO have to give you credit. There was a time when that information would have taken a dozen cycles of back and forth before the information was forthcoming. This time it was provided much sooner, one additional cycle instead of many, and you provided it immediately upon (not exactly friendly, I'll admit) request instead of forcing it to be extracted in some laborious process, so maybe you just overlooked providing the reason in the original post. Whatever, it's much improved over past behavior and you do get credit for that. Thanks. =:^) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
