From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFE6138A1F for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:00:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E57D4E0B7E; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:00:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DEDE8E0A04 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:00:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pomiot.lan (87-205-26-188.ip.netia.com.pl [87.205.26.188]) (using SSLv3 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mgorny) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C35E133F46E; Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:00:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2014 22:59:59 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBHw7Nybnk=?= To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Cc: ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Dealing with XDG directories in ebuild environment Message-ID: <20140126225959.6f17bf8a@pomiot.lan> In-Reply-To: <20140126213527.1f5f6192@googlemail.com> References: <20140125221628.26f3aa96@pomiot.lan> <20140126204926.33f2baef@googlemail.com> <20140126213527.1f5f6192@googlemail.com> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.9.3 (GTK+ 2.24.22; 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-sha512; boundary="Sig_/MHJ8gCLw.B1XMO/VTk1giEc"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 61d633fa-4e54-4d85-96bd-23520f9cff12 X-Archives-Hash: a439eb36bd91cf95e6bfcb7553275105 --Sig_/MHJ8gCLw.B1XMO/VTk1giEc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dnia 2014-01-26, o godz. 21:35:27 Ciaran McCreesh napisa=C5=82(a): > On Sun, 26 Jan 2014 13:21:44 -0800 > Alec Warner wrote: > > Sorry, I work on Portage. What I'm saying is that We are free to > > change the behavior of *portage* now; rather than waiting for a new > > EAPI. If an ebuild needs to define EAPI=3Deapi-next to 'correctly' use > > XDG_*, well that is someone else's can of worms. >=20 > Changing Portage to hide the issue is a bad idea, since it makes it > harder for developers to notice that that's a problem they need to fix. > Although maybe you could set XDG_* to something that will give a big > noisy sandbox violation for current EAPIs? Yes, because instantly breaking a few dozen ebuilds in stable tree for the sake of proving a point is always a good idea. --=20 Best regards, Micha=C5=82 G=C3=B3rny --Sig_/MHJ8gCLw.B1XMO/VTk1giEc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQJ8BAEBCgBmBQJS5YVfXxSAAAAAAC4AKGlzc3Vlci1mcHJAbm90YXRpb25zLm9w ZW5wZ3AuZmlmdGhob3JzZW1hbi5uZXQ2REJCMDdDQzRGMERBRDA2RUEwQUZFNDFC MDdBMUFFQUVGQjQ0NjRFAAoJELB6GurvtEZO9jQQAIGc5q3o9lZiWsURboYQxhdb 3juv5EWZeFViGuMC0/McJhFuxEWYixqbeE2PJqfn5ATSFxiSHGG362HgUWXptOnG 3UgDTdsl/yml353aQHyxGr91r7Tt+mJoYcQ1tiruCpnK/8CXE1KspUmDnXFi+pGr taDoXLax95w3qf5Y6f5/KEbbUzZL/9gkNmWixlIEUsYk/5JBSLgZHu50x4sgYlfV gd1DeY+xrDQezAV99IVfDHTAoTUGTN8NAWg6xyx0o4BJAPJHpTDHlrfMYGNLxG7+ nRdoEJySrvZVjGnkNuIXEQMbI56V3fyJKt3Uh4snyHbDcFVLNyDjOG13hmbKUidr Qz/HkD3iRR8dUSPpMLqztdqkYoS6nWWsbUOrK0g5A6VoihiC6JdCFbcObDIyvITI QrAcYofI/PuRxR0HMgJIkcYAZcgJD5PLKE1KErK15eNxFxgpOZHDgFGZ4PFmkjxV EEVoKbPUaOuR0Ha6jrG1FCRPXIHuaitl4xO+ne6BdLyUt2p2xwU1SooJUkpf6v5G re5ibv3lLV0cZ2VeONtyFXKtPsB1FGuPzbXTVdxEc/NVYKEE1Upcv4x//IM0ditD 9pUjJR4OQ+acJ9h7Z3MNfwrmZnSziL4Rx4rFAZq/fxKaOm83MIbjhygc6W71GWqv EtvVbG3Q+Lua74BCtT5p =F5AG -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/MHJ8gCLw.B1XMO/VTk1giEc--