Re: [gentoo-dev] per-package environment variables.

[Anton Starikov <antst@ifm.liu.se>]

Olivier Fisette wrote:
>>Anyway, if we going to include both, files and inlined vars, we have to
>>have a bit complicated parser of lines. In such case we even don't need
>>[], we can leave as
>>=app-sci/pymol-0.95* gcc_low_opt CC="gcc"
>>"=" specify enough that we have inlined expression.
> 
> 
> I don't think so. What if you want to source a bash script containing 
> functions to manipulate variables, such as filtering or replacing CFLAGS? 
> There is no "=" in such a command. If inline is used, we'll need delimiters. 
> 
> However, I don't think inline definitions are that important. A first 
> implementation dealing only with "atom [env_file] [...]" in package.env would 
> be enough, certainly.
> 
Even more, I can say that my first idea was idea with delimiters or some 
kind of brackets. But after time I've realized that it's looks a bit 
ugly and not intuitive. Moreover, I really believe that if you want to 
include something really complicated, better to do it via separate file, 
rather via inlining, by this you will decrease probability that file 
will be parsed wrong. Moreover, I also suggest that inline definitions 
not such important, more, I believe that in 99.9% cases you will want to 
inline something like VAR="foo bar". So, I think it not worst to make 
limitation about inlining, only simple variable definitions. Rest goes 
to separate files. In such case we have somehow easy and intuitive (I 
hope) syntax, which not looks ugly (at least for me :)), simple parsing 
and so on.
But of course, implementing of "atom env_file1 env_file2 ..." is 
simplest for now, at least from my ponit of view. (I'm really not great 
specialist in python, and really didn't pass throw all portage scripts, 
but I've found that I can really implement easy this syntax for adding 
about 5-10 lines of code into portage, via using methods that already 
exist there)

-- 
Anton Starikov

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list