Re: [gentoo-portage-dev] [PATCH 4/4] sync: Add backwards compat with SYNC_{UMASK,USER} variables

["Michał Górny" <mgorny@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1669 bytes --]

Dnia 2014-12-07, o godz. 10:33:44
Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> napisał(a):

> On 12/07/2014 01:06 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > Dnia 2014-12-07, o godz. 01:04:19
> > Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> > 
> >> On 12/07/2014 12:22 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>> Dnia 2014-12-06, o godz. 23:15:09
> >>> Zac Medico <zmedico@gentoo.org> napisał(a):
> >>>
> >>>> On 12/05/2014 04:03 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> >>>>> Support SYNC_UMASK and SYNC_USER variables that were used in Funtoo
> >>>>> Portage, as fallbacks to sync-umask and sync-user repo keys.
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  pym/portage/package/ebuild/_config/special_env_vars.py |  2 +-
> >>>>>  pym/portage/package/ebuild/config.py                   | 12 ++++++++++++
> >>>>>  pym/portage/repository/config.py                       | 13 +++++++++++++
> >>>>>  3 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> Why should we add backward compatibility code for something that was
> >>>> never supported in the master branch?
> >>>
> >>> I just thought it wouldn't hurt if we're backporting features.
> >>
> >> Adding extra code for new redundant variables seems undesirable. Are
> >> they somehow better than using equivalent repos.conf [DEFAULT] settings
> >> for sync-user and sync-mask?
> > 
> > They're easier to set in env than the fancy PORTAGE_REPOSITORIES.
> 
> Do these settings commonly need to be overridden in the env?

I have no clue. I just don't want users to lose functionality when it
doesn't require much effort (anymore, consider I've lost over an hour
to figure out why settings are incomplete...).

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 949 bytes --]