| 1 |
On Wednesday 21 May 2003 05:35, Stephan Hermann wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I think you are misunderstanding. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> I'm not talking about ebuilds and gentoo software. I'm really talking about |
| 6 |
> portage. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Scenario: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I want to build up a separate build server for own made profiles. |
| 11 |
> I'm providing own ebuilds depending on self defined enviroments. |
| 12 |
> I want to use portage, to manage different profiles. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> So, I have to move the portage python scripts from /usr/portage, the |
| 15 |
> symlinks from /usr to somewhere else, and to redeclare all hardcoded path |
| 16 |
> variables in the portage python source from e.g. /etc/make.conf to |
| 17 |
> /opt/company_standard/portage_dist/etc/make.conf. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> I'm not talking about ebuilds, because I'm provinding my own set of |
| 20 |
> ebuilds, specialised for several standard application enviroments. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Thanks for the clarification. I think that portage itself should be as |
| 24 |
location independent as possible ( one fixed location will be necessary to |
| 25 |
tell portage where to find the rest, but this location could be specified |
| 26 |
optionally by an environment variable). Allthough I'm not responsible for |
| 27 |
portage I encourage you to submit any patches to the extend of making portage |
| 28 |
even more location independent. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Paul |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 34 |
Researcher |
| 35 |
Mail: pauldv@××××××.nl |
| 36 |
Homepage: http://www.cs.kun.nl/~pauldv |
Archives