Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Sid S <r030t1@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's future directtion ?
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 15:07:23
Message-Id: CAAD4mYiYPmmKB0fr4yW1y9era_nxSETxXgpxyOkPKx=iyTG-BA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo's future directtion ? by Rich Freeman
1 Oh. I've had to use that, even. I was thinking patches of ebuilds. (???)
2
3 On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:
4
5 > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Sid S <r030t1@×××××.com> wrote:
6 > >
7 > >>Today, ebuilds don't even let a chance for an admin to apply a series of
8 > >>patches to the vanilla/distro-maintainer sources without having to
9 > >>rewrite/fork the ebuild.
10 > >
11 > > There isn't a way to specify ebuild properties in a way like command line
12 > > arguments? Where you can explicitly silence options by specifying them
13 > > later, etc?
14 > >
15 >
16 > Any environment-level property can be overridden at the command line,
17 > though this does not include patching.
18 >
19 > However, the original claim is still wrong - you just stick the
20 > patches in /etc/portage/patches. This only works for ebuilds that
21 > call epatch_user right now, but for EAPI6 it will work for all
22 > packages.
23 >
24 > --
25 > Rich
26 >
27 >