On 09/05/2015 02:07 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 6:46 AM, Julian Ospald <hasuf...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> This is particularly useful for people who run alternative >> package managers and want to control their configuration. > > I certainly support the principle, but for the sake of transparency > can we try to coordinate this so that the setting name doesn't change > when this moves into the package manager for EAPI6? PMS is more about > the content of the ebuilds, so presumably all package managers could > structure how patches are provided by the user in whatefver way is > most consistent with how they already operate. >
Of course, PMS should not refer to directories like "/etc/portage", but I am not sure it's the place to introduce variables for users to configure their PM behavior. I'd rather expect this to be PM-specific. At that point, probably nothing will change for portage users anyway. Everything else is not within our control.
