[gentoo-dev] USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN: why make.globals?

[gentoo-dev] USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN: why make.globals?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

Is there any particular reason USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN needs to be in
make.globals, as opposed to in base/make.defaults alongside USE_EXPAND?
Seems to me it'd make more sense were the two kept together...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh
Mail            : ciaran dot mccreesh at blueyonder.co.uk


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN: why make.globals?

[Zac Medico]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Is there any particular reason USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN needs to be in
> make.globals, as opposed to in base/make.defaults alongside USE_EXPAND?
> Seems to me it'd make more sense were the two kept together...

Given the support that's currently available in portage, that seems like a good move to my.  However, I've been thinking about proposing the addition of support for things like $PORTDIR/profiles/{make.defaults,bashrc,package.use} as part of a "repo level" profile.  These would be a logical extension of the support that already exists for $PORTDIR/profiles/package.mask.  But anyway, base/make.defaults makes sense for now.

Zac

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFErZxp/ejvha5XGaMRAvw4AKCiNolBORuKxOhptk6THRqG8PrmkwCgwCVt
hjybF1i7x/ymSkKx7QbxyEg=
=kziC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] USE_EXPAND_HIDDEN: why make.globals?

[Stephen Bennett]

On Thu, 06 Jul 2006 16:27:39 -0700
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> wrote:

> But anyway, base/make.defaults makes sense for now.

It is done.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list