From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1O5mBE-0004Nn-3t for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:42:26 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D5A06E0867; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:42:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.157]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CE4AE085B for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:42:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so858229fgg.10 for ; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.239.11 with SMTP id m11mr3075059fgh.22.1272141727366; Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pomiot.lan (213-238-104-49.adsl.inetia.pl [213.238.104.49]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 4sm2820010fgg.22.2010.04.24.13.42.06 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 24 Apr 2010 13:42:07 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Spam Box Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:42:58 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: [gentoo-dev] The /etc/portage/env profile.bashrc hack Message-ID: <20100424224258.497f05e1@pomiot.lan> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.7.5 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/ZW5XN9EeG_yzkZqd/2L/HPL"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 4215b03c-cc46-4bff-95bc-7288819778f7 X-Archives-Hash: e248620132e22daef087c53f1dfb4230 --Sig_/ZW5XN9EeG_yzkZqd/2L/HPL Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I would like to raise a discussion on the topic of the /etc/portage/env files support hack, implemented in the profile.bashrc file in gx86 base profile [1]. I am working on the portage-side implementation of the feature and I would like to avoid double-sourcing of the override files. Although that could be implemented through checking for the existence of new Portage private variable, which would be used to pass the override directory path to the bash part of Portage, I would rather see the hack removed ASAP. Why? Because it should never had been added there in the first place. It is not only a hack -- it is a hack silently changing the behaviour of all package managers out there (assuming they source profile.bashrc) for all users. The hack bypasses the whole concept of PM package stabilization - it 'injects' the bash code into every version of Portage, pkgcore and Paludis (I guess). A code targeted at Portage, I'd add. And it is poorly documented too. I wasted a lot of time trying to find the code related to the feature in the Portage code and searching for some references before I realized that thing has nothing to do with Portage source code! To sum up, I think that the hack should be removed ASAP -- even before Portage starts supporting the feature the 'correct' way. It could be temporarily replaced with a check for existence of '/etc/portage/env' directory, printing a short warning that the hack has been disabled and user should either wait for Portage release supporting the feature (or upgrade his Portage version, if the removal is going to happen after the related rc-release) or implement it /etc/portage/bashrc-side. [1] http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/profiles/base/profile.bashr= c?view=3Dmarkup --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/ZW5XN9EeG_yzkZqd/2L/HPL Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.15 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkvTV9oACgkQnGSe5QXeB7vdlQCfUSDmD5w8HmRQi3P22anHq+m4 5PAAn1yUNVtZJbDQ1gmyOG2GewXQPmij =4yrS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/ZW5XN9EeG_yzkZqd/2L/HPL--