| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA256 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On 20/12/12 01:55 PM, George Shapovalov wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Thursday 20 December 2012 13:21:11 Ian Stakenvicius wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> Nope, he means /usr/portage/local, not /usr/local/portage. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> Alan's description *was* for /usr/portage/local |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> Really? It matches /usr/local/portage pretty well. How did it come |
| 11 |
> around then? We had /usr/local/portage for ages for storing local |
| 12 |
> changes.. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
/usr/local/portage has always been a convention or recommendation; |
| 16 |
it's not a directory that portage (package or tree) ever created, |
| 17 |
enforced, or did anything in particular to support. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
/usr/portage/local/ came around (i think -- i was around at this time |
| 20 |
but was not a dev and was not privy to decision making) so that |
| 21 |
locally modified ebuilds could be stored and distributed (ie via |
| 22 |
netmount or manual rsync) along with the rest of the portage tree |
| 23 |
without worries of the changes being wiped out on the next --sync. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 26 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
iF4EAREIAAYFAlDTZhEACgkQ2ugaI38ACPBEXwD+IuFOgsHcQDNaqUCUfSZW53ca |
| 29 |
7gsST6Prls/7rPmpGqcBAKnnUIH48UPcDYrwexlNbmPzRN9CjYaeR36/2qo/hC47 |
| 30 |
=r5C9 |
| 31 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives