On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 08:28:08AM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 August 2005 06:40, Brian Harring wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:33:23PM +0200, Marius Mauch wrote:
> > > Theoretical discussions about this are pointless IMO without
> > > numbers/facts to back things up.
> >
> > I'd posit theroetical discussions about this are pointless without
> > getting ebuild dev's to give a yay/nay on whether they want it or not;
> > not much for trying to force it down their throats if they don't want
> > it (more work, essentially).
> 
> I don't really see what it has to do with ebuild devs... We're talking about 
> the user's environment leaking into the portage build environment, no? 
> Environment vars used by ebuilds can/should be set by users in a portage 
> configuration file rather than being added to the environment. The only 
> issue i see here is user customizations - fex, a hypothetical colorgcc that 
> gets its config info from the env.
Ixnaying user env leaking in will lead to bugs where ebuilds *allow* 
for that, along with pissed off ebuild devs if they've not been made 
aware of it oncoming.

Hell, they may not even agree on the deterministic bit re: env; this 
would explicitly block developers from fooling with autotool vars 
(WANT_AUTOMAKE fex) for testing without mangling the ebuild.

So yeah, I'm trying to ensure we're not screamed at for deploying what 
(imo) is a good change, but may piss people off if it's not stated up 
front (akin to glep 33).
~harring